Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Perspective
After many posts and many thousands of comments on the primary, there's not much new information being added about any of our choices. Unless the Sweet Meteor of Death shows up soon, we really are going to have to nominate one of these guys to go head-to-head with the SCOAMF in November.
As flawed as all our guys are, though, at least they appear to take our financial situation seriously, unlike the current occupant of the White House (via Mark Steyn at NRO).And here was the exchange between Geithner and Ryan, after Ryan pointed the terrifying baseline (in red): GEITHNER: You could have taken [the chart] out [to the year] 3000 or to 4000. [Laughs] RYAN: Yeah, right. We cut it off at the end of the century because the economy, according to the CBO, shuts down in 2027 on this path. (emphasis added)Obama submitted a budget that bankrupts us, his Treasury Secretary laughs it off, and I'm supposed to give a crap about their ginned-up election year bogeymen of income inequality or contraception? Please. None of our candidates are perfect. Far from it. But that's not an attainable goal, and we really need to get back on target. And for God's sakes, let's quit freaking out about every little thing that might theoretically scare off mush middle voters. Mitt likes firing people and making them poor so he has more people to not be concerned about. Santorum's going to issue an executive order banning the pill and non-procreative sex. Newt is going to form a swingers' club on the moon. We get it. The MFM is going to run these guys down to get their boyfriend reelected, no matter what. Let's stop helping them. As Milton Friedman said, "It's nice to elect the right people, but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing." We're going to elect the wrong person. We always were - they're politicians, after all. Let's devote more energy to nudging them all in the right direction and less to tearing them down over stupid stuff.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
As long as we keep rewarding people for doing the wrong thing we are doomed. Paul Ryan was way too timid only looking to solve 40% of our problem and people on the Right demonized him as an extremist.
I said it yesterday in the DOOM thread, we don't have the will to do what is necessary.
I said it yesterday in the DOOM thread, we don't have the will to do what is necessary.
Posted by: Blaster at February 17, 2012 08:38 AM (Fw2Gg)
2
Im in ur base, stealing your rubberz
Posted by: LolSantorum at February 17, 2012 08:39 AM (Myak6)
3
And for God's sakes, let's quit freaking out about every little thing that might theoretically scare off mush middle voters.
-----------------------------------
LOL, you know Andy I have always said there really is no "mushy middle swing voter". In 40 years of active politics I have never known a flip-flopping voter.
-----------------------------------
LOL, you know Andy I have always said there really is no "mushy middle swing voter". In 40 years of active politics I have never known a flip-flopping voter.
Posted by: Vic at February 17, 2012 08:39 AM (YdQQY)
4
That exchange between Timmy and Ryan illustrates the unseriousness our elected leaders have.
Our fucking economy and way of life are in serious jeopardy and these twats are laughing.
Our fucking economy and way of life are in serious jeopardy and these twats are laughing.
Posted by: McLovin at February 17, 2012 08:39 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: Bob Saget at February 17, 2012 08:40 AM (SDkq3)
6
Shut up Andy. Fucking RINO.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 17, 2012 08:41 AM (6Oaaw)
7
"The MFM is going to run these guys down to get their boyfriend reelected, no matter what. Let's stop helping them."
Can't put it much better than that. The Washington Post, in particular, seems to be turning into afarm system for theObamaAdministration ...http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
"The MFM is going to run these guys down to get their boyfriend reelected, no matter what. Let's stop helping them."
Can't put it much better than that. The Washington Post, in particular, seems to be turning into afarm system for theObamaAdministration ...http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
Posted by: ombdz at February 17, 2012 08:42 AM (2DpoY)
8
I picked the wrong day to stop licking random frogs
I picked the wrong day to stop licking random frogs
Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2012 08:42 AM (wuv1c)
9
Yeah I've come to the conclusion our Republic is dead, we are now almost a true democracy, and 50% of our fellow "citizens" will continue to vote themselves paychecks while the country burns.
Posted by: Mr Pink at February 17, 2012 08:43 AM (6tM1B)
10
And for God's sakes, let's quit freaking out about every little thing that might theoretically scare off mush middle voters.
But...but...they're the backbone of America!
/
But...but...they're the backbone of America!
/
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 17, 2012 08:44 AM (vbh31)
11
Correction: We are going to 'nominate' the wrong person.
We can seeing kumbaya once we have figured out who can actually win the whole thing.
We can seeing kumbaya once we have figured out who can actually win the whole thing.
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at February 17, 2012 08:44 AM (dptRY)
12
Focus people. obama is the enemy. We have to crush him, drive a stake thru his heart, and bury him and his fellow commies
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 08:44 AM (i6RpT)
13
I picked the wrong day to stop licking random frogs
Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2012 08:42 AM (wuv1c)
You shouldn't have been licking frogs in the first place. Toads are where it's at.
I picked the wrong day to stop licking random frogs
Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2012 08:42 AM (wuv1c)
You shouldn't have been licking frogs in the first place. Toads are where it's at.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 17, 2012 08:45 AM (7+pP9)
14
So in the Second American Republic what should be the requirements for citizenship? Military service, owning property, and paying more in taxes than you recieve in a paycheck or benefits....maybe have citizenship revoked the minute u recieve any sort of welfare, so it's more of a stigma.
Posted by: Mr Pink at February 17, 2012 08:45 AM (6tM1B)
15
Read Krauthammer's latest column:
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
“…Has anyone considered the import of this [contraceptive compromise the] new
mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies
to give away for free a service that his own health and human services
secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.
On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order
a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to
certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the
time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1…
This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious
institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not
surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the
economy....”
Whatever the defects Romney and Santorum have its a pretty good bet neither will go there. Or at least are less likely to.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
“…Has anyone considered the import of this [contraceptive compromise the] new
mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies
to give away for free a service that his own health and human services
secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.
On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order
a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to
certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the
time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1…
This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious
institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not
surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the
economy....”
Whatever the defects Romney and Santorum have its a pretty good bet neither will go there. Or at least are less likely to.
Posted by: Will Danagher at February 17, 2012 08:46 AM (u3N3z)
16
Wait! What? Andy gets that the contraception thing is ginned up! Hallelujah! Hallelejuh!
Perspective. Thank you.
Perspective. Thank you.
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 08:47 AM (7w+6S)
17
Trying to copy and paste an entire website into your comment?
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 17, 2012 08:48 AM (vbh31)
18
Anyone but Obama Paul santorum Gingrich and romney oh look we hate everyone! But I hate Romney less! So I guess for romney?
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 17, 2012 08:49 AM (k3yJ4)
19
It could be worse.
I'm not sure how, but I've found that saying that makes me feel better for some reason.
It could be worse.
I'm not sure how, but I've found that saying that makes me feel better for some reason.
Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2012 08:52 AM (wuv1c)
20
We're tanned, rested and ready.
Posted by: Godzilla/Cthulhu 2012 at February 17, 2012 08:53 AM (7FadD)
21
Oops, Andy didn't get the memo, you can't post anything reasonable and rational about politics here.
Posted by: Oops at February 17, 2012 08:53 AM (6T8Ay)
Posted by: unelectable at February 17, 2012 08:53 AM (Zw/H7)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 17, 2012 08:53 AM (k3yJ4)
24
Santorum cannot win. The left and the media would have a field day with hIs moral prudishness. And yes the mushy middle will not vote for him.
Posted by: JB at February 17, 2012 08:54 AM (tL86Y)
25
And have you forgotten that Santorum's wife is weird? That's the main thing, here.
Posted by: blaster at February 17, 2012 08:54 AM (Fw2Gg)
26
Posted by: Vic at February 17, 2012 08:39 AM (YdQQY)
That's because you don't read the New York Times [insert angels singing].
They tell me every day that there are millions of swing voters with no firm ideological bent.
That's because you don't read the New York Times [insert angels singing].
They tell me every day that there are millions of swing voters with no firm ideological bent.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 08:54 AM (nEUpB)
27
Well thats it I'm all in for Sanatorium
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 17, 2012 08:54 AM (mFxQX)
28
I'm glad you've realized that my inability to not "win" an argument over a small minority issue will be a great asset to defeating Obama this election year.
Who needs independents or libertarians anyways? ABO readership should put me over 50%!
Who needs independents or libertarians anyways? ABO readership should put me over 50%!
Posted by: Ricky Santorum at February 17, 2012 08:55 AM (dptRY)
29
When I worked as a plans officer we used to say "The perfect plan coming too late is the worst plan."
Same thing on waiting for the perfect candidate. You'll still be waiting in 2016 only the country will be considerably more f'ed-up.
Same thing on waiting for the perfect candidate. You'll still be waiting in 2016 only the country will be considerably more f'ed-up.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 08:55 AM (SzAZ7)
30
<i>romneycare</i>
Posted by: unelectable at February 17, 2012 08:56 AM (Zw/H7)
31
And I think we should talk about hobo hunting as public policy... *wink wink*
But don't take that to mean I'm for it as public policy! *wink wink*
But don't take that to mean I'm for it as public policy! *wink wink*
Posted by: Ricky Santorum at February 17, 2012 08:56 AM (dptRY)
32
Perspective, courtesy a Hotair poster:
I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim Jones.
lynncgb on February 16, 2012
That's for those of you who think we're getting a mite testy around here....
Perspective, courtesy a Hotair poster:
I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim Jones.
lynncgb on February 16, 2012
That's for those of you who think we're getting a mite testy around here....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 17, 2012 08:56 AM (kdS6q)
33
Here's what I posted on the other thread:
Santorum is a protest vote against Romney. Santorum supporters should admit this.
Romney
is a lousy-ass candidate. He's a butt-ugly girl who actually wants to
go to the prom with you, and it's tonight. Romney supporters should
admit this.
Santorum is a protest vote against Romney. Santorum supporters should admit this.
Romney
is a lousy-ass candidate. He's a butt-ugly girl who actually wants to
go to the prom with you, and it's tonight. Romney supporters should
admit this.
Posted by: nickless at February 17, 2012 08:57 AM (MMC8r)
34
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 17, 2012 08:48 AM (vbh31)
Cut him a bit of slack. This blog software is older than most of our cars.
And Mohammed's wife!
I'm here 'til Thursday. Try the veal!
Cut him a bit of slack. This blog software is older than most of our cars.
And Mohammed's wife!
I'm here 'til Thursday. Try the veal!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 08:57 AM (nEUpB)
35
The Left will create a controversy and then say that the Republican is controversial. It doesn't matter. Don't let them set the terms of the conversation.
They'll do it to Romney too, don't pretend they won't. So that isn't the deciding factor.
For me I think a President should have executive experience so that's where I am. But I think you can argue that without resorting to the politics of personal destruction which only benefits the Left.
They'll do it to Romney too, don't pretend they won't. So that isn't the deciding factor.
For me I think a President should have executive experience so that's where I am. But I think you can argue that without resorting to the politics of personal destruction which only benefits the Left.
Posted by: blaster at February 17, 2012 08:58 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: unelectable at February 17, 2012 08:58 AM (Zw/H7)
Posted by: Vic at February 17, 2012 08:58 AM (YdQQY)
38
Flip flopping fappers furiously flogging...
Posted by: dananjcon at February 17, 2012 08:59 AM (8ieXv)
39
President Bush was like a broken leg. You are hobbled for a while and there is a possibility of complications. If you get proper care you will recover and be fine.
President Obama is like blunt force trauma to the head. You are in a coma and they have drilled holes in your skull to releave the pressure. They are telling your family "We just don't know."
Maybe the Republican candidates are all just broken arms but that's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. ABO in 2012.
President Obama is like blunt force trauma to the head. You are in a coma and they have drilled holes in your skull to releave the pressure. They are telling your family "We just don't know."
Maybe the Republican candidates are all just broken arms but that's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. ABO in 2012.
Posted by: JB1000 at February 17, 2012 09:00 AM (GT74S)
40
Obama? More like Nobama!
Posted by: I'm awesome at February 17, 2012 09:01 AM (FpBe1)
41
Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:01 AM (8y9MW)
42
Of course people "flip flop". Sometimes by learning something, sometimes by forgetting something, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Changing one's mind is not in and of itself a bad thing. But saying "flip-flop" is the cutesy way of making it seem so.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 17, 2012 09:01 AM (hiMsy)
43
I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all
honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim
Jones.
HotAir = Freepers with a budget.
I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all
honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim
Jones.
HotAir = Freepers with a budget.
Posted by: nickless at February 17, 2012 09:02 AM (MMC8r)
44
OT re: Breitbart's rant.
Who knew that Andy had plans within plans with his little Youtube rant captured and used by Olbermann et al? The man is pure fucking insane genius approaching Hari Seldon-esque territory. He is a Bene Gesserit Adept at manipulating the left. An 9th level Ginaz Swordmaster at cutting them to rhetorical pieces. The Kwisatz Haderach of the right. His name is a killing word!
BREITBART!!!!
Who knew that Andy had plans within plans with his little Youtube rant captured and used by Olbermann et al? The man is pure fucking insane genius approaching Hari Seldon-esque territory. He is a Bene Gesserit Adept at manipulating the left. An 9th level Ginaz Swordmaster at cutting them to rhetorical pieces. The Kwisatz Haderach of the right. His name is a killing word!
BREITBART!!!!
Posted by: EC at February 17, 2012 09:02 AM (GQ8sn)
45
Things always look brighter just before the nuclear blast wave hits. Screw the SMOD; I at least want to hear of my tax dollars going for something useful like irradiating a few ayatollahs.
I plan to vote for Newt on Super Tuesday, but I predict right now that SaintOral will win MS.
ABO is the bottom line.
I plan to vote for Newt on Super Tuesday, but I predict right now that SaintOral will win MS.
ABO is the bottom line.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 17, 2012 09:02 AM (BhuDE)
46
I see you all got Andy's point.
And the political class can laugh all they want to, they know they're not paying for the ridiculousness that is the Obama "budget."
And the political class can laugh all they want to, they know they're not paying for the ridiculousness that is the Obama "budget."
Posted by: mare at February 17, 2012 09:02 AM (A98Xu)
47
Posted by: nickless at February 17, 2012 08:57 AM (MMC8r)
Both points are valid.
And Andy's points in the post are absolutely spot-on!
The only issue for me is who can beat Obama -- and who requires the fewest number of bourbons to fortify me to vote for him.
Both points are valid.
And Andy's points in the post are absolutely spot-on!
The only issue for me is who can beat Obama -- and who requires the fewest number of bourbons to fortify me to vote for him.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:02 AM (nEUpB)
48
Say what you want about Jim Jones, but at least he always provided free drinks at his box socials.
Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2012 09:02 AM (wuv1c)
49
Serious Question:
Did this all start with Obama? I mean, the president submitting a budget that is a freaking joke that nobody takes seriously?
Have other president's budgets been based in reality and actually implemented?
Did this all start with Obama? I mean, the president submitting a budget that is a freaking joke that nobody takes seriously?
Have other president's budgets been based in reality and actually implemented?
Posted by: basket case nation at February 17, 2012 09:04 AM (saueq)
50
Say what you want about Jim Jones, but at least he always provided free drinks at his box socials.
Yeah, but if you forgot to tip your waitress, you were in a world of hurt.
Yeah, but if you forgot to tip your waitress, you were in a world of hurt.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 17, 2012 09:05 AM (vbh31)
51
If you went back into Ronald Reagan’s history prior to being elected president, there were thousands of positions and decisions he made that, taken alone and without the context of the times, would be viewed as liberal or RINO. The truth is, nobody knows what a person will do once in the office.
All we can do is try to pick someone who has character and the ability to lead.
I’m not thrilled with any of the remaining candidates and hope that we get to a brokered convention. If one of them happens to win the nomination, I’ll support him. Sure, Mitt may institute a more liberal version of Obamacare, Newt might waste a few hundred billion on a moon colony and Santorum could declare that Gabe and his friends should be rounded up and placed in a sexual reeducation camp, but I don’t think it’s likely.
If we do get to a brokered convention, the priority should be to pick someone who excites the base and who can clearly lay out what conservative principles are.
All we can do is try to pick someone who has character and the ability to lead.
I’m not thrilled with any of the remaining candidates and hope that we get to a brokered convention. If one of them happens to win the nomination, I’ll support him. Sure, Mitt may institute a more liberal version of Obamacare, Newt might waste a few hundred billion on a moon colony and Santorum could declare that Gabe and his friends should be rounded up and placed in a sexual reeducation camp, but I don’t think it’s likely.
If we do get to a brokered convention, the priority should be to pick someone who excites the base and who can clearly lay out what conservative principles are.
Posted by: jwest at February 17, 2012 09:05 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:06 AM (nEUpB)
53
Guys, how can we even THINK of nominating a guy like Santorum? He's crazy, I tell you. Look what he said back in 2008,
"Our nation is scourged by the plague of pornography. Somebody needs to step up to the plate to combat this evil, and that somebody will be me. I will lead the charge, I will knock down the doors myself, I will personally reach under the beds and take away the nudie books from America's teenagers myself, if necessary, to end this evil once and for all. The...time...is...NOW, America!"
Frightening, isn't it??
"Our nation is scourged by the plague of pornography. Somebody needs to step up to the plate to combat this evil, and that somebody will be me. I will lead the charge, I will knock down the doors myself, I will personally reach under the beds and take away the nudie books from America's teenagers myself, if necessary, to end this evil once and for all. The...time...is...NOW, America!"
Frightening, isn't it??
Posted by: Libertarian ConcernTroll at February 17, 2012 09:06 AM (+inic)
54
The fact that the SCOAMT wants to unilaterally reduce our nukes from 5,000 to 300 is a major red flag.
This should shake up any intelligent being.
WTF??!
And I know it is not "the thing" to question how he can get away with it, but how can he? I mean, really, Congress??? Any congressman out there who is not totally impotent?
And won't disassembly cause enviro issues?
Agenda 21, people. Read it. Pass it on.
This should shake up any intelligent being.
WTF??!
And I know it is not "the thing" to question how he can get away with it, but how can he? I mean, really, Congress??? Any congressman out there who is not totally impotent?
And won't disassembly cause enviro issues?
Agenda 21, people. Read it. Pass it on.
Posted by: Justamom at February 17, 2012 09:06 AM (Sptt8)
55
Keep on pushing that line.
The contraceptive mentality has nothing to do with the country's financial mess.
Testify.
Trying to dodge the consequences of one's actions has nothing to do with .. er ...
trying to dodge the consequences of one's actions
The contraceptive mentality has nothing to do with the country's financial mess.
Testify.
Trying to dodge the consequences of one's actions has nothing to do with .. er ...
trying to dodge the consequences of one's actions
Posted by: Gerry at February 17, 2012 09:07 AM (lUxfo)
56
"Jim Jones with a budget?"
Someone got their hyperbole suppository stuffed extra deep today.
Someone got their hyperbole suppository stuffed extra deep today.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 17, 2012 09:08 AM (hiMsy)
57
Obama - the economy shuts down in 2027
Romney- the economy shuts down in 2028
who gets to own the collapse?
Romney- the economy shuts down in 2028
who gets to own the collapse?
Posted by: unelectable at February 17, 2012 09:08 AM (Zw/H7)
58
Geitner and Obama are silly.
the media are focuising like lasers on contraception.
It's as if the boyfriend in the white house has control over his willing media unprofessional pravdas.
the media are focuising like lasers on contraception.
It's as if the boyfriend in the white house has control over his willing media unprofessional pravdas.
Posted by: rectal exam at February 17, 2012 09:08 AM (O7ksG)
59
In case you didn't read this at American Digest:
'"This is the point of commie-lib politics. They will use their power to take your power. The commie-libs make demands, not because of the facts and the "progress" toward their utopia, but because if you do what they want you will be weaker and vulnerable to the next demand. Yet, the guileless Conservatives debate the merits of the details of the commie-lib demand, or they'll point out this latest demand is inconsistent with some past demand. The details and the consistency matter only to the Conservatives, yet that is what they spend 98% of their energy discussing. You might as well tell the con-men running the Three Card Monte you've detected the card switch or that taking someone's money isn't nice.
"When you debate the details with a commie-lib you are putting the "kick me" sign on your chest and back. You are signalling you still haven't cought on and you are still an easy target. Just because you prefer to discuss the details and the rules and the underlying principle doesn't mean that's effective. It's only when you recognize the commie-libs are engaged in a naked power grab and this fight is about power, not the details of their latest charge, can you effectively resist their tactic.
"Stop being willfully naive and be an effective soldier for your views. Stop rushing to talk radio so the conservative host can try and convince you not to raise taxes in a recession, not interfere in children's lunches, not break up families, not advance the goals of America's enemies. I know this is lost on most Conservatives because the world around the one characteristic of the Conservatives is a determined avoidance of conflict with the liberals. Better to discuss what the commie-libs are doing than to risk a fight with the commie-libs. It's Conservatives students and employees that hide their views in school or at work. You can't win while on defense. Commie-lilbs are always on offense, that's why they control so much. If our tactic was working we would run their institutions, we don't.
"You can return to Mayberry Rules when we win the fight. Right now we must play by Prison Rules, or lose."'
Please remember that when you decide to go nuclear on any of our Rep candidates.
'"This is the point of commie-lib politics. They will use their power to take your power. The commie-libs make demands, not because of the facts and the "progress" toward their utopia, but because if you do what they want you will be weaker and vulnerable to the next demand. Yet, the guileless Conservatives debate the merits of the details of the commie-lib demand, or they'll point out this latest demand is inconsistent with some past demand. The details and the consistency matter only to the Conservatives, yet that is what they spend 98% of their energy discussing. You might as well tell the con-men running the Three Card Monte you've detected the card switch or that taking someone's money isn't nice.
"When you debate the details with a commie-lib you are putting the "kick me" sign on your chest and back. You are signalling you still haven't cought on and you are still an easy target. Just because you prefer to discuss the details and the rules and the underlying principle doesn't mean that's effective. It's only when you recognize the commie-libs are engaged in a naked power grab and this fight is about power, not the details of their latest charge, can you effectively resist their tactic.
"Stop being willfully naive and be an effective soldier for your views. Stop rushing to talk radio so the conservative host can try and convince you not to raise taxes in a recession, not interfere in children's lunches, not break up families, not advance the goals of America's enemies. I know this is lost on most Conservatives because the world around the one characteristic of the Conservatives is a determined avoidance of conflict with the liberals. Better to discuss what the commie-libs are doing than to risk a fight with the commie-libs. It's Conservatives students and employees that hide their views in school or at work. You can't win while on defense. Commie-lilbs are always on offense, that's why they control so much. If our tactic was working we would run their institutions, we don't.
"You can return to Mayberry Rules when we win the fight. Right now we must play by Prison Rules, or lose."'
Please remember that when you decide to go nuclear on any of our Rep candidates.
Posted by: Rocky at February 17, 2012 09:09 AM (QiZg4)
60
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 17, 2012 09:01 AM (hiMsy)
And of course the question is whether the flip-flop is an intellectual process of synthesizing new information and experience, or a bald attempt at currying favor with the electorate for short-term gain.
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
And of course the question is whether the flip-flop is an intellectual process of synthesizing new information and experience, or a bald attempt at currying favor with the electorate for short-term gain.
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:09 AM (nEUpB)
61
Well said Andy.
You can add my name to that petition.
You can add my name to that petition.
Posted by: Sean Paden at February 17, 2012 09:11 AM (PsEoL)
62
hyperbole is worse than Hitler
Posted by: stolen from Andy Levy at February 17, 2012 09:11 AM (FpBe1)
63
Newt is going to form a swingers' club on the moon.
Dude. That was the one thing about Newt I liked.
Dude. That was the one thing about Newt I liked.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:12 AM (VtjlW)
64
@ 35 For me I think a President should have executive experience so that's where I am.
I think it's important to consider what kind of executive experience a candidate has, however. While Romney has "executive experience," I'm not overly impressed with it.
He was a one-term governour of Massachusetts who "led from the Left" and didn't run for re-election because he knew he was going to get thrashed by Deval Patrick.
He headed up Bain Capital, a position which largely presides over the destruction and dismemberment of businesses. I know, I know, that's the "waste processing function" in capitalism, but the fact remains that it doesn't involve a whole lot of true leadership or management skills focused on building and growing an economic entity that is ailing. I mean, I wouldn't vote for the town garbageman for mayor, just because he's involved in a waste disposal service that the community uses.
He "saved the Olympics," but not without some apparent corruption.
Sorry, but in addition to the simple fact that he's a leftist, I also don't find his executive experience very impressive.
I think it's important to consider what kind of executive experience a candidate has, however. While Romney has "executive experience," I'm not overly impressed with it.
He was a one-term governour of Massachusetts who "led from the Left" and didn't run for re-election because he knew he was going to get thrashed by Deval Patrick.
He headed up Bain Capital, a position which largely presides over the destruction and dismemberment of businesses. I know, I know, that's the "waste processing function" in capitalism, but the fact remains that it doesn't involve a whole lot of true leadership or management skills focused on building and growing an economic entity that is ailing. I mean, I wouldn't vote for the town garbageman for mayor, just because he's involved in a waste disposal service that the community uses.
He "saved the Olympics," but not without some apparent corruption.
Sorry, but in addition to the simple fact that he's a leftist, I also don't find his executive experience very impressive.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:12 AM (+inic)
65
Look, I came here solely for Ace's and Gabe's circular firing-squad-incitement posts. If the cob-loggers are going to post crap like this on a regular basis then I'm outta here.
Posted by: Big McLargeHuge at February 17, 2012 09:13 AM (ffwWg)
66
David Patraeus in a brokered Convention in 2012
Posted by: Rthor at February 17, 2012 09:13 AM (/80g3)
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at February 17, 2012 09:14 AM (gGqF+)
Posted by: Ugly Betty at February 17, 2012 09:14 AM (e8kgV)
69
Do not worry earth beings. The Galactic Federation of Light, plus various High Councils from assorted universes and dimensions will save our collective bacon. Awaken and vibrate at a higher frequency! Ascend on 21.12.2012.
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (lpWVn)
71
This blog software is older than most of our cars.
When I drive my wife, Morgan Fairchild around, we always take the '54 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. That's the ticket. You betcha!
When I drive my wife, Morgan Fairchild around, we always take the '54 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. That's the ticket. You betcha!
Posted by: Tommy Flanagan at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (TJww4)
72
andy, my new hero, perhaps i'll wait on the smoking the tailpipe of the car in the garage.
Posted by: willow at February 17, 2012 09:16 AM (TomZ9)
73
Frankly, folks, I think we're (that's mostly soothsayer and me, I think, but others have contributed ideas, too) on to something with the idea of Longbow PAC (or whatever we call it).
Let's focus on informing the public what stuttering clusterf*cks of miserable tyrants democrats in general are and try to move the needle to the right. If we can get good, conservative Senators and Representatives elected, it almost won't matter who the president is (I only say almost because, as people have pointed out: judicial nominees). But we can't do that if we're focusing all our attention on the craptastic choices we have at the top of the ticket.
Now, for some reason I have yet to discover (the error is probably carbon based), I can't actually join the yahoo group, or I'd do this there, but I seriously want to get some of the more creative heads together and do some web-ads (and maybe some real fund-raising?) to get this going.
The Democrats serve evil ends (even if individual Democrats aren't actually evil), and the public needs to be made aware of the damage their policies do. The Republicans can't or won't do that, so it's up to the grass-roots.
Let's focus on informing the public what stuttering clusterf*cks of miserable tyrants democrats in general are and try to move the needle to the right. If we can get good, conservative Senators and Representatives elected, it almost won't matter who the president is (I only say almost because, as people have pointed out: judicial nominees). But we can't do that if we're focusing all our attention on the craptastic choices we have at the top of the ticket.
Now, for some reason I have yet to discover (the error is probably carbon based), I can't actually join the yahoo group, or I'd do this there, but I seriously want to get some of the more creative heads together and do some web-ads (and maybe some real fund-raising?) to get this going.
The Democrats serve evil ends (even if individual Democrats aren't actually evil), and the public needs to be made aware of the damage their policies do. The Republicans can't or won't do that, so it's up to the grass-roots.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:16 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 09:17 AM (lpWVn)
75
Sing it with me, MMs:
Old McDonald had a nation
A-B, A-B-O
And on that farm he had a cocksucking commie
A-B, A-B-O
And a commie commie here
And a commie commie there
Here a commie
There a commie
Everywhere a commie commie
Old McDonald had a nation
A-B, A-B-Oooooooooooo!
Old McDonald had a nation
A-B, A-B-O
And on that farm he had a cocksucking commie
A-B, A-B-O
And a commie commie here
And a commie commie there
Here a commie
There a commie
Everywhere a commie commie
Old McDonald had a nation
A-B, A-B-Oooooooooooo!
Posted by: joncelli, on his Visit to MMFA HQ at February 17, 2012 09:17 AM (RD7QR)
76
Allen sez, Let's focus on informing the public what stuttering clusterf*cks of
miserable tyrants democrats in general are and try to move the needle to
the right. If we can get good, conservative Senators and
Representatives elected, it almost won't matter who the president is (I
only say almost because, as people have pointed out: judicial nominees).
But we can't do that if we're focusing all our attention on the
craptastic choices we have at the top of the ticket.
amen
miserable tyrants democrats in general are and try to move the needle to
the right. If we can get good, conservative Senators and
Representatives elected, it almost won't matter who the president is (I
only say almost because, as people have pointed out: judicial nominees).
But we can't do that if we're focusing all our attention on the
craptastic choices we have at the top of the ticket.
amen
Posted by: willow at February 17, 2012 09:17 AM (TomZ9)
77
I personally don't like any of the candidates. I never thought I'd be saying this as a woman, but yes, I have electile dysfunction!
Posted by: runningrn at February 17, 2012 09:17 AM (vJ9tV)
78
Thank you Andy.
I am not even going to read Gabes post. The CFG papers on all three are equivalently bad. To act otherwise is bull.
I am not even going to read Gabes post. The CFG papers on all three are equivalently bad. To act otherwise is bull.
Posted by: Y-not on iphone at February 17, 2012 09:17 AM (5H6zj)
79
I said it yesterday in the DOOM thread, we don't have the will to do what is necessary.
I agree. I will also add that Hard Reality does have the will - and more imporantly - the way to impose what is necessary on us. In the mean time, party on dudes like it's 1999!
Hookers and Val-U-Rite!
I said it yesterday in the DOOM thread, we don't have the will to do what is necessary.
I agree. I will also add that Hard Reality does have the will - and more imporantly - the way to impose what is necessary on us. In the mean time, party on dudes like it's 1999!
Hookers and Val-U-Rite!
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 17, 2012 09:18 AM (1hM1d)
80
In the interest of effective politics we have put forth candidates that are equivalent to a mini-gun on a rotating turret for you to gather around. This will catch anyone who is not hit by the circular firing squad.
Posted by: GOP at February 17, 2012 09:18 AM (tf9Ne)
81
I wonder if some Fashion Week shitbird designer will debut an "Occupy-inspired" clothing line? I get the feeling fashion is a deep Lib industry.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 17, 2012 09:18 AM (hiMsy)
82
hyperbole is worse than Hitler
Posted by: stolen from Andy Levy at February 17, 2012 09:11 AM (FpBe1)
But I hear that hyperbole also doesn't listen to his Generals?
Posted by: stolen from Andy Levy at February 17, 2012 09:11 AM (FpBe1)
But I hear that hyperbole also doesn't listen to his Generals?
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:19 AM (i6RpT)
83
66
David Patraeus in a brokered Convention in 2012
Posted by: Rthor at February 17, 2012 09:13 AM (/80g3)
We know next to nothing about his politics. For all we know he's Colin Powell part II. Pass.
David Patraeus in a brokered Convention in 2012
Posted by: Rthor at February 17, 2012 09:13 AM (/80g3)
We know next to nothing about his politics. For all we know he's Colin Powell part II. Pass.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 09:20 AM (RD7QR)
84
Thank you. Maybe now I can start spending more time on my favorite blog----this one. All the hyper-partisanhip for our primary politicians on all the blogs is so negative I just can't keep going there. Save me AofS HQ!!!
Posted by: small town girl at February 17, 2012 09:21 AM (jlMI/)
Posted by: mama winger at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (P6QsQ)
86
The woman running for Gabby Gifford's seat was on Fox this morning. She is Martha McSally and female fighter pilot who is worried about the direction the country is going.
Steve "mumbles" Doocy asked her about Santorum's comment about women not serving in combat situations, and she said this gem:
"I'd like to kick him right in the jimmies."
Steve was struck ah.....dumber.
Steve "mumbles" Doocy asked her about Santorum's comment about women not serving in combat situations, and she said this gem:
"I'd like to kick him right in the jimmies."
Steve was struck ah.....dumber.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (UOM48)
87
I'm probably in the minority here, but I kind ofenjoy tearing down our candidates, I find it's easier to figure out what we're actually working with that way rather than blowing smoke up each other's asses. My guy was Perry, I still think he's head and shoulders above this sorry group, but it never stopped me from ripping on him whenever he'd step on his dick. But then again, I'm an asshole.
Posted by: mugiwara at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (W7ffl)
88
Listen to Patraeus
Name recognition, and makes the leftiesmheds spin in circles. Requires a suspension of belief, or some such crap
Name recognition, and makes the leftiesmheds spin in circles. Requires a suspension of belief, or some such crap
Posted by: Rthor at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (/80g3)
89
One thing to keep in mind when worrying about Santorum is that the Left tried to do the same thing to Bob McDonnell in Virginia back in 2009. Remember? Painted him as some crazy anti-woman, anti-gay weirdo. Dug up some dissertation he wrote 25 years ago about women staying at home, pulled some quotes out of context, and tried to make it look like he was going to ban women in the workplace?
How well did that work out for them?
Not very. McDonnell won by 19 points. Virginia is a purplish state, perhaps a little more to the Right than the country at large. Still, if Santorum stays on a solid economic message - and frankly, I think he would, a lot of the "contraception" stuff is actually being driven by the MSM in an effort to build another McDonnell-gate - he should do fine.
How well did that work out for them?
Not very. McDonnell won by 19 points. Virginia is a purplish state, perhaps a little more to the Right than the country at large. Still, if Santorum stays on a solid economic message - and frankly, I think he would, a lot of the "contraception" stuff is actually being driven by the MSM in an effort to build another McDonnell-gate - he should do fine.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (+inic)
90
The woman running for Gabby Gifford's seat was on Fox this morning. She is Martha McSally and female fighter pilot who is worried about the direction the country is going.
Steve "mumbles" Doocy asked her about Santorum's comment about women not serving in combat situations, and she said this gem:
"I'd like to kick him right in the jimmies."
Steve was struck ah.....dumber.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (UOM4
She's and R right?
Steve "mumbles" Doocy asked her about Santorum's comment about women not serving in combat situations, and she said this gem:
"I'd like to kick him right in the jimmies."
Steve was struck ah.....dumber.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (UOM4
She's and R right?
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:23 AM (i6RpT)
91
Thanks for this, Andy.
Posted by: lurker_above at February 17, 2012 09:23 AM (URaek)
92
Sorry, but in addition to the simple fact that he's a leftist, I also don't find his executive experience very impressive.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:12 AM (+inic)
Even less impressive - Rick Santorum's complete lack of any executive experience.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:12 AM (+inic)
Even less impressive - Rick Santorum's complete lack of any executive experience.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:24 AM (zmlwq)
93
Rocky is right.
All this rearranging of deck chairs is distraction.
Crap to keep us busy, divided, off- target.
Trouble is, there are SO many stupid effin people out there
All this rearranging of deck chairs is distraction.
Crap to keep us busy, divided, off- target.
Trouble is, there are SO many stupid effin people out there
Posted by: Justamom at February 17, 2012 09:24 AM (Sptt8)
94
nevergiveup, yep.
She said she's been teaching leadership around the world, and saw what a mess this country is in.
She's begging people for support so she can win the seat. I was really, really impressed.
I've been looking for the video, but it's not up on Fox yet.
She said she's been teaching leadership around the world, and saw what a mess this country is in.
She's begging people for support so she can win the seat. I was really, really impressed.
I've been looking for the video, but it's not up on Fox yet.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:25 AM (UOM48)
95
We're going to elect the wrong person. We always were - they're politicians, after all. Let's devote more energy to nudging them all in the right direction and less to tearing them down over stupid stuff.
If only more people would take that advice to heart!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if our nominee, whoever that may be, can't defeat Obama in the general despite allllll his negative baggage....
unemployment; amoral and immoral stance on religion; pacifist narcissism; ballooning debt and skyrocketing deficits; unserious attempts to fix the economy; baldfaced actions to undermine American prosperity, particularly in the energy sector; croneyism; soft tyranny; racist 'dog whistles' everywhere you turn; blatant hypocrisy as he dines with "the 1%" while claiming that the rich should pay their "fair share"; Rev Wright; Libya; sending troops to central Africa (whatever happened with that, btw? Did anything ever come of it?); Mooch's food Nazism; castigating Wall Street while simultaneously raking in the donations from Wall Street; extravagant parties and hours of golf while average Americans are just trying to make ends meet; disengagement from the actual process of governing to focus on the ego-stroking process of campaigning; smug superiority despite clearly having the IQ of a rusty toaster circa 1952; snubs of our allies; Israel-bashing; kissing up to our enemies; letting Russia and China walk all over us; abandoning Iranian protesters who were protesting our enemy, while supporting Egyptian protesters who were working to overthrow our ally;etc., etc., etc.
....then we were never going to win at all.
If only more people would take that advice to heart!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if our nominee, whoever that may be, can't defeat Obama in the general despite allllll his negative baggage....
unemployment; amoral and immoral stance on religion; pacifist narcissism; ballooning debt and skyrocketing deficits; unserious attempts to fix the economy; baldfaced actions to undermine American prosperity, particularly in the energy sector; croneyism; soft tyranny; racist 'dog whistles' everywhere you turn; blatant hypocrisy as he dines with "the 1%" while claiming that the rich should pay their "fair share"; Rev Wright; Libya; sending troops to central Africa (whatever happened with that, btw? Did anything ever come of it?); Mooch's food Nazism; castigating Wall Street while simultaneously raking in the donations from Wall Street; extravagant parties and hours of golf while average Americans are just trying to make ends meet; disengagement from the actual process of governing to focus on the ego-stroking process of campaigning; smug superiority despite clearly having the IQ of a rusty toaster circa 1952; snubs of our allies; Israel-bashing; kissing up to our enemies; letting Russia and China walk all over us; abandoning Iranian protesters who were protesting our enemy, while supporting Egyptian protesters who were working to overthrow our ally;etc., etc., etc.
....then we were never going to win at all.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 17, 2012 09:25 AM (4df7R)
96
For those pining for a brokered convention, consider this:
There are four possibilities coming out of a brokered convention:
1) One of the current nominees. This would be bad because that nominee would not actually have the support of the majority of the party.
2) A previous nominee who has since failed. This would be bad because they'd already proven they didn't have what it takes (Sorry, Rick Perry, maybe in 4 or 8 years).
3) A solid conservative who didn't run. This would be bad because they didn't run. Not only do they not have the support of the majority of the party, they didn't show any interest (or the courage) to put themselves out there in the first place.
4) A Conservative Pop Hero (David Patraeus, for one. John Bolton for another). This is bad because, beyond their respective areas of expertise, we don't know their politics. Patraeus, for all we know, could be a pro-abortion, gun-grabbing nitwit, outside his foreign-policy/national defense chops.
Far better that someone (even if it's RINO Romney) win outright.
There are four possibilities coming out of a brokered convention:
1) One of the current nominees. This would be bad because that nominee would not actually have the support of the majority of the party.
2) A previous nominee who has since failed. This would be bad because they'd already proven they didn't have what it takes (Sorry, Rick Perry, maybe in 4 or 8 years).
3) A solid conservative who didn't run. This would be bad because they didn't run. Not only do they not have the support of the majority of the party, they didn't show any interest (or the courage) to put themselves out there in the first place.
4) A Conservative Pop Hero (David Patraeus, for one. John Bolton for another). This is bad because, beyond their respective areas of expertise, we don't know their politics. Patraeus, for all we know, could be a pro-abortion, gun-grabbing nitwit, outside his foreign-policy/national defense chops.
Far better that someone (even if it's RINO Romney) win outright.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:26 AM (8y9MW)
97
I just don't get this enthusiasm for a brokered convention. I mean, who exactly is going to be doing the brokering? The same people who picked Mitt or what? Nope, sounds risky to me.
Posted by: I don't know who I am at February 17, 2012 09:26 AM (MDQQ7)
98
It's all about getting rid of the SCOAMF. The longer we flail away at each other the more resources we waste that could have been aimed at him. Converge on a candidate, soon. I choose Romney because he's got an organization in place and at least some executive experience. He's deeply flawed, yes, but so are all politicians. It doesn't matter. We have 263 days to defeat the SCOAMF -- that's about 37 weeks. That's not a lot of time. We must choose, and turn our fire on our nation's enemy: Barack Hussein Obama.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 09:26 AM (RD7QR)
99
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (UOM4
Doocy is a friendly guy. I have seen him at a local market a few times. Pleasant, not arrogant, but yeah...not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Doocy is a friendly guy. I have seen him at a local market a few times. Pleasant, not arrogant, but yeah...not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (nEUpB)
100
@ 92 Even less impressive - Rick Santorum's complete lack of any executive experience.
Honestly, I'd take no experience over bad experience.
Once again, I would point out that we don't have any SantorumCare acting as the operational template for ObamaCare.
Honestly, I'd take no experience over bad experience.
Once again, I would point out that we don't have any SantorumCare acting as the operational template for ObamaCare.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (+inic)
101
As I posted in the most recent hate thread...
144 So I see we're starting the hate early this morning. Hooray. I'm gonna need more coffee.
Hey do you think we could have one day...ONE WEEKDAY DAY...without any "our candidate XYZ sucks because" threads? We all know that all of them suck, at this point its just rehashing the same crap over and over.
Seriously...one day of peace wouldn't kill us would it? We could maybe concentrate instead fully on that cocksucker in the white house? Or any of his corrupt lackeys?
Please?
144 So I see we're starting the hate early this morning. Hooray. I'm gonna need more coffee.
Hey do you think we could have one day...ONE WEEKDAY DAY...without any "our candidate XYZ sucks because" threads? We all know that all of them suck, at this point its just rehashing the same crap over and over.
Seriously...one day of peace wouldn't kill us would it? We could maybe concentrate instead fully on that cocksucker in the white house? Or any of his corrupt lackeys?
Please?
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (OmL1S)
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 09:28 AM (lpWVn)
103
Seriously...one day of peace wouldn't kill us would it? We could maybe
concentrate instead fully on that cocksucker in the white house? Or any
of his corrupt lackeys?
I'd like at least one Longbow-PAC brainstorming thread.
concentrate instead fully on that cocksucker in the white house? Or any
of his corrupt lackeys?
I'd like at least one Longbow-PAC brainstorming thread.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Tourettes Guy at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (TJww4)
105
Thanks Mr. Andy.
You used more words to say what I said in comments @Gabe's post. But you made more sense.
Does that make sense?
We must focus on ABO. Not ABR, or ABS, etc. They are just the tools to accomplish the objective: ABO!
After who ever that person turns out be is elected, perhaps we can guide him along the path with our subtle axes, swords, long bows, cross bows, and poisoned darts.
You used more words to say what I said in comments @Gabe's post. But you made more sense.
Does that make sense?
We must focus on ABO. Not ABR, or ABS, etc. They are just the tools to accomplish the objective: ABO!
After who ever that person turns out be is elected, perhaps we can guide him along the path with our subtle axes, swords, long bows, cross bows, and poisoned darts.
Posted by: Hammersith Police at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (Onw8c)
106
Seriously...one day of peace wouldn't kill us would it? We could maybe concentrate instead fully on that cocksucker in the white house? Or any of his corrupt lackeys?
Please?
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (OmL1S)
Amen, DG! You sound like me during the height of the Herman Cain Hate Train!
Please?
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (OmL1S)
Amen, DG! You sound like me during the height of the Herman Cain Hate Train!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (4df7R)
107
Doocy is a friendly guy. I have seen him at a local market a few times. Pleasant, not arrogant, but yeah...not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (nEUpB)
He's conservative, married, has kids that seem to have their heads on straight and lives in NJ. What's not to like. Maybe he wants to come to our meet up
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (nEUpB)
He's conservative, married, has kids that seem to have their heads on straight and lives in NJ. What's not to like. Maybe he wants to come to our meet up
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (i6RpT)
108
"It's nice to elect the right people, but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
This is what the Santorum surge is giving Mittens the opportunity to do -- he has to come right on guns, healthcare, and the size of government. If he wants to ensure Luap Nor and his band of merry men get pointed in a constructive direction, then he needs to make a definitive statement on monetary policy and procedure -- not a silly Paulian view, but a reasonable path different then the current path. Obama's plan to devalue the dollar must be intelligently presented to the senior voters.
This is what the Santorum surge is giving Mittens the opportunity to do -- he has to come right on guns, healthcare, and the size of government. If he wants to ensure Luap Nor and his band of merry men get pointed in a constructive direction, then he needs to make a definitive statement on monetary policy and procedure -- not a silly Paulian view, but a reasonable path different then the current path. Obama's plan to devalue the dollar must be intelligently presented to the senior voters.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: runningrn at February 17, 2012 09:30 AM (vJ9tV)
110
Doocy asked McSally if she had met Santorum and she said she hadn't, but she'd like to have a talk with him about women and combat.
And I'm sure Doocy is a really nice guy. But he gives me the willies during interviews. His son is actually much calmer and seems more polished.
And I'm sure Doocy is a really nice guy. But he gives me the willies during interviews. His son is actually much calmer and seems more polished.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (UOM48)
111
Hey any idea what the name of the Wacked out ICE agent is? Is there a reason they are not saying?
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (i6RpT)
112
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 09:27 AM (OmL1S)
I'll take a guns cooking food thread.
That's always amusing. We could fight about which regional BBQ is best.
I'll take a guns cooking food thread.
That's always amusing. We could fight about which regional BBQ is best.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (nEUpB)
113
runningrn- well West seems to be holding most of them.
Posted by: willow at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (TomZ9)
114
89 One thing to keep in mind when worrying about Santorum is that the Left tried to do the same thing to Bob McDonnell in Virginia back in 2009. Remember? Painted him as some crazy anti-woman, anti-gay weirdo. Dug up some dissertation he wrote 25 years ago about women staying at home, pulled some quotes out of context, and tried to make it look like he was going to ban women in the workplace? How well did that work out for them? Not very. McDonnell won by 19 points. Virginia is a purplish state, perhaps a little more to the Right than the country at large. Still, if Santorum stays on a solid economic message - and frankly, I think he would, a lot of the "contraception" stuff is actually being driven by the MSM in an effort to build another McDonnell-gate - he should do fine.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (+inic)
As a Virginian, let me point out a few things.
1)McDonnell's goofball quotes resided far in the past. He wasn't spouting off about any such things within a year or two of the election.
2)McDonnell is far more skilled as a retail politician than Santorum. Funny you should mention 19 points - wasn't that the margin when Santorum got destroyed by a guy who can barely speak without drooling? As an INCUMBENT, no less?
3)McDonnell didn't run as a culture warrior at all. For all I know his beliefs are identical to Santorum's. The difference is, McDonnell's smart enough to keep that stuff very low-key. He showed excellent discipline in hammering on the economy throughout the election.
4)McDonnell was a popular sitting AG facing a really laughably bad Dem opponent. Whatever you or I may think about Bozo the President, he's got a hardcore base of support that would walk through fire to vote for the shithead. He's also black, so the press is even more subservient and fawning towards him than they usually are towards Dems. It's a much tougher slog.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:22 AM (+inic)
As a Virginian, let me point out a few things.
1)McDonnell's goofball quotes resided far in the past. He wasn't spouting off about any such things within a year or two of the election.
2)McDonnell is far more skilled as a retail politician than Santorum. Funny you should mention 19 points - wasn't that the margin when Santorum got destroyed by a guy who can barely speak without drooling? As an INCUMBENT, no less?
3)McDonnell didn't run as a culture warrior at all. For all I know his beliefs are identical to Santorum's. The difference is, McDonnell's smart enough to keep that stuff very low-key. He showed excellent discipline in hammering on the economy throughout the election.
4)McDonnell was a popular sitting AG facing a really laughably bad Dem opponent. Whatever you or I may think about Bozo the President, he's got a hardcore base of support that would walk through fire to vote for the shithead. He's also black, so the press is even more subservient and fawning towards him than they usually are towards Dems. It's a much tougher slog.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (zmlwq)
115
This is a good post. Does that mean Ace will now stop hyperventilating about a Santorum theocracy that will never emerge, even if he does become president?
Posted by: Will at February 17, 2012 09:33 AM (ubduJ)
116
I saw Doocy and Amy Sedaris (strange bedfellows) at a book-signing thing. Both did about a 30 minute "routine" selling their books. Doocy was good, Sedaris was hilarious and handed out cookies.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 17, 2012 09:34 AM (hiMsy)
117
Anyhoo, Martha McSally winning Gifford's seat would be awesome.
Plus, naming a ship after an actual female fighter pilot wouldn't be as insulting.
Plus, naming a ship after an actual female fighter pilot wouldn't be as insulting.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 17, 2012 09:34 AM (UOM48)
118
Geithner's type of dissmissive attitude runs through the entire Obama regime. They want to spend (READ: waste) as much of our money their socialist trainwreck as they please and you'll like it. Know why? Shut up, that's why.
Posted by: SFC MAC at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (wyMyJ)
119
Perspective? Brokered convention? How about Kate Upton with a big greasy hamburger in her hand?
Posted by: Fritz at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (/ZZCn)
120
113 runningrn- well West seems to be holding most of them.
Ok, I will give you West, but what about those other candyassed, useless eunuchs? Why is it that it's been the chicks who have been bringing it? Renee Ellmers, that woman from I think New Mexico or AZ during the Holder testimony? Where are the men of courage in The Republican party?
Ok, I will give you West, but what about those other candyassed, useless eunuchs? Why is it that it's been the chicks who have been bringing it? Renee Ellmers, that woman from I think New Mexico or AZ during the Holder testimony? Where are the men of courage in The Republican party?
Posted by: runningrn at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (vJ9tV)
121
69
Do not worry earth beings. The Galactic Federation of Light, plus
various High Councils from assorted universes and dimensions will save
our collective bacon. Awaken and vibrate at a higher frequency! Ascend
on 21.12.2012.
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (4q5tP)
I hope that website is a joke... but I suspect it isn't.
Wow.
69
Do not worry earth beings. The Galactic Federation of Light, plus
various High Councils from assorted universes and dimensions will save
our collective bacon. Awaken and vibrate at a higher frequency! Ascend
on 21.12.2012.
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (4q5tP)
I hope that website is a joke... but I suspect it isn't.
Wow.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (O6H8J)
122
I will vote for whomever the idiot the Republicans nominate. Will I like it? No, I won't. But getting that jackass out of the White House is just too important.
Period.
Period.
Posted by: jjmurphy at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (xjEAl)
123
You guys are seriously fucked. We know, you tried. Well, some of you.
Posted by: Ghost of America's Future at February 17, 2012 09:36 AM (fYOZx)
124
Renee Elmers if from NC. She beat out that scum Bob "who are you" Etheridge in the last election.
Posted by: jjmurphy at February 17, 2012 09:37 AM (xjEAl)
125
111 Hey any idea what the name of the Wacked out ICE agent is? Is there a reason they are not saying?
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (i6RpT)
Maybe they still have to inform next of kin?
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:31 AM (i6RpT)
Maybe they still have to inform next of kin?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 17, 2012 09:37 AM (4df7R)
126
If you can't be, with the one you lo ovvvve.
Love the one your with!
Love the one your with!
Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (jucos)
127
I just don't get this enthusiasm for a brokered convention. I mean, who exactly is going to be doing the brokering? The same people who picked Mitt or what? Nope, sounds risky to me.
Cheney, it's our only hope.
Cheney, it's our only hope.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (WkuV6)
128
Re: Freedman "bums"
How voters nudge Wall Street "right"?
Not with "Promise them anything; just get their votes!" Obamalite
How voters nudge Wall Street "right"?
Not with "Promise them anything; just get their votes!" Obamalite
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (8y9MW)
130
Colonel Martha McSally was a pilot in the United States Air Force. She was the first American woman to fly in combat since the 1991 lifting of the prohibition of women in combat. McSally is also the first woman to command a USAF fighter squadron, the 354th Fighter Squadron (354 FS) based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. McSally is an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot.[1]
McSally graduated from St. Mary Academy - Bay View and then the United States Air Force Academy in 1988. She earned a Master's degree from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She earned her wings at Laughlin AFB, Texas and was initially assigned as a First Assignment Instructor Pilot (FAIP) in the T-37. She was selected for Lead-in Fighter Training (LIFT) in 1993, completed the Replacement Training Unit for the A-10 Thunderbolt II, was assigned to an operational A-10 squadron and was deployed to Kuwait in January 1995. During that deployment, she flew combat patrol over Iraq under Operation Southern Watch, enforcing the no-fly zone. In 2000, she reported to Joint Task Force Southwest Asia (JTF-SWA) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a temporary assignment in support of Operation Southern Watch. In July 2004, she took command of the A-10 equipped 354th Fighter Squadron, and was subsequently deployed to Afghanistan under Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, where she employed weapons in combat for the first time. In 2005, McSally and her squadron were awarded the David C. Shilling Award, given by the Air Force Association for the best aerospace contribution to national defense.
McSally graduated from St. Mary Academy - Bay View and then the United States Air Force Academy in 1988. She earned a Master's degree from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She earned her wings at Laughlin AFB, Texas and was initially assigned as a First Assignment Instructor Pilot (FAIP) in the T-37. She was selected for Lead-in Fighter Training (LIFT) in 1993, completed the Replacement Training Unit for the A-10 Thunderbolt II, was assigned to an operational A-10 squadron and was deployed to Kuwait in January 1995. During that deployment, she flew combat patrol over Iraq under Operation Southern Watch, enforcing the no-fly zone. In 2000, she reported to Joint Task Force Southwest Asia (JTF-SWA) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a temporary assignment in support of Operation Southern Watch. In July 2004, she took command of the A-10 equipped 354th Fighter Squadron, and was subsequently deployed to Afghanistan under Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, where she employed weapons in combat for the first time. In 2005, McSally and her squadron were awarded the David C. Shilling Award, given by the Air Force Association for the best aerospace contribution to national defense.
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (i6RpT)
131
Cheney's warcock, it's our only hope.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (WkuV6)
FIFY.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (WkuV6)
FIFY.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (RD7QR)
132
34 Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 17, 2012 08:48 AM (vbh31)Cut him a bit of slack. This blog software is older than most of our cars.And Mohammed's wife!I'm here 'til Thursday. Try the veal!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 08:57 AM (nEUpB)
Mohammad's wife ‘Aisha was only nine years old.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 08:57 AM (nEUpB)
Mohammad's wife ‘Aisha was only nine years old.
Posted by: SFC MAC at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (wyMyJ)
133
Cheney, it's our only hope.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (WkuV6)
Ooooh, I'm gettin the vapors at that thought.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (WkuV6)
Ooooh, I'm gettin the vapors at that thought.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, all in for Heroin Overdose 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (fYOZx)
134
Look, I came here solely for Ace's and Gabe's circular
firing-squad-incitement posts. If the cob-loggers are going to post crap
like this on a regular basis then I'm outta here.
Yeah, more angsty shirt rending. This place could lose its emo cred.
firing-squad-incitement posts. If the cob-loggers are going to post crap
like this on a regular basis then I'm outta here.
Yeah, more angsty shirt rending. This place could lose its emo cred.
Posted by: Heorot at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (Nq/UF)
135
We are, indeed, seriously fucked. 99% of the elected officials in this country are willfully blind to what we're facing. And of the presidential candidates, the only one who sees the problem clearly also happens to be a demented old man who solicits Nazi donations, believes strongly in relying on the kindness of strangers as the basis for a sound foreign policy and entertains any number of crackpot conspiracy theories.
It's all extremely depressing.
It's all extremely depressing.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (zmlwq)
136
Andy...thank you great post. Anybody But Obama 2012.
Posted by: billygoat at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (ElCPi)
137
I don't know if anyone has said it yet, but FUCK the mushy middle. The only thing you find in the middle of the road are animals that didn't make it to the other side. The same applies in politics.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (jucos)
138
runningrn, true, true, they seem to have hide them, because they all know they are going to be kicked un-mercifully.
Posted by: willow at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (TomZ9)
139
98 It's all about getting rid of the SCOAMF. The longer we flail away at each other the more resources we waste that could have been aimed at him. Converge on a candidate, soon.
---
I kind of disagree with you on this point. There is no rush to converge on a candidate -- and there's really no way to *make* that happen (aside from blasting away at the opposition and disqualifying them, which I thought was something we decided to stop doing). The process has to run its course.
I am not proposing that we stop endorsing the guys we think are the best (or least bad). I just would like the arguments to be more substantive, not crap about people's wives (which absolutely disgusts me) or projections about how women Indies will vote in November or stuff like that.
I wish we had had a smaller field sooner, but not a field of zero. It's a shame that most of the "debates" happened with so many folks on stage because it really hamstrung their substance. And now that we have a manageable group of guys to consider, the debates are suddenly ok to skip.
It's fine to have it down to the four we have (even Paul) if it results in discussing substantive issues, imho.
---
I kind of disagree with you on this point. There is no rush to converge on a candidate -- and there's really no way to *make* that happen (aside from blasting away at the opposition and disqualifying them, which I thought was something we decided to stop doing). The process has to run its course.
I am not proposing that we stop endorsing the guys we think are the best (or least bad). I just would like the arguments to be more substantive, not crap about people's wives (which absolutely disgusts me) or projections about how women Indies will vote in November or stuff like that.
I wish we had had a smaller field sooner, but not a field of zero. It's a shame that most of the "debates" happened with so many folks on stage because it really hamstrung their substance. And now that we have a manageable group of guys to consider, the debates are suddenly ok to skip.
It's fine to have it down to the four we have (even Paul) if it results in discussing substantive issues, imho.
Posted by: Y-not under the influence at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (5H6zj)
140
hidden*
Posted by: willow at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (TomZ9)
141
129 Cheney, it's our only hope.Liz?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (8y9MW)
Nope, Don
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:38 AM (8y9MW)
Nope, Don
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (zmlwq)
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (5H6zj)
143
He's conservative, married, has kids that seem to have their heads on straight and lives in NJ. What's not to like. Maybe he wants to come to our meet up
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (i6RpT)
**
Eh...ya think we can get him to bring Martha McCallum??
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 17, 2012 09:29 AM (i6RpT)
**
Eh...ya think we can get him to bring Martha McCallum??
Posted by: dananjcon at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (8ieXv)
144
Since it's a bit of a Hobson's Choice among our candidates, ie. all will be demonized by the MSM,
I believe "likability" is going to be a huge factor going forward.
My kids, who in this context function as low-information (non-)voters, would wander in as I watched the debates and sit down for a bit and watch.
They consistently told me every time Santorum started talking, "I don't like this guy."
As for who they liked:
1) Newt (when he was in his happy smart grandfather phase before he went full-Occutard). They liked that he was positive and seemed smart. Go figure.
2) Romney
3) Ron Paul
Given the fact that the MSM will go hammer and tongs after the Republican candidate, "likeability" will be a big factor.
Reagan was able to break the image of the stupid, crazy mean guy set up by the media because he was generally likable.
I doubt Santorum can break the mold established by the media. He comes across as too hot and scoldy.
Sigh....I like that Newt is likable and a bit of a wild card as well as has a record of strong conservative action, but well, he tossed that away.
So, I guess I'm part of the romney collective now.
Sigh...
I believe "likability" is going to be a huge factor going forward.
My kids, who in this context function as low-information (non-)voters, would wander in as I watched the debates and sit down for a bit and watch.
They consistently told me every time Santorum started talking, "I don't like this guy."
As for who they liked:
1) Newt (when he was in his happy smart grandfather phase before he went full-Occutard). They liked that he was positive and seemed smart. Go figure.
2) Romney
3) Ron Paul
Given the fact that the MSM will go hammer and tongs after the Republican candidate, "likeability" will be a big factor.
Reagan was able to break the image of the stupid, crazy mean guy set up by the media because he was generally likable.
I doubt Santorum can break the mold established by the media. He comes across as too hot and scoldy.
Sigh....I like that Newt is likable and a bit of a wild card as well as has a record of strong conservative action, but well, he tossed that away.
So, I guess I'm part of the romney collective now.
Sigh...
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 09:41 AM (I49Jm)
145
That scares me, it means we haven't hit bottom yet
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 17, 2012 08:53 AM (k3yJ4)
It's good to remind ourselves that the financial doom that most political junkies on the right see coming is probably farther down the road than we realize. It's probably not in 1 to 2 years, more like 5 to 10 years. I could be wrong, but thats the impression I'm starting to get. The can kicking still has a ways to go.
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 17, 2012 08:53 AM (k3yJ4)
It's good to remind ourselves that the financial doom that most political junkies on the right see coming is probably farther down the road than we realize. It's probably not in 1 to 2 years, more like 5 to 10 years. I could be wrong, but thats the impression I'm starting to get. The can kicking still has a ways to go.
Posted by: Max Power at February 17, 2012 09:42 AM (+wxCD)
146
16 Wait! What? Andy gets that the contraception thing is ginned up! Hallelujah! Hallelejuh! Perspective. Thank you.
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 08:47 AM (7w+6S
Andy gets it, I *think* ace might be getting it. Malor? Somebody will have to tell me because I don't think Ican even rubberneck his posts anymore.
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 08:47 AM (7w+6S
Andy gets it, I *think* ace might be getting it. Malor? Somebody will have to tell me because I don't think Ican even rubberneck his posts anymore.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 09:42 AM (rX1N2)
147
My kids, who in this context function as low-information (non-)voters, would wander in as I watched the debates and sit down for a bit and watch.
When I was studying polisci that was known as the six year old test - put a six year old in front of a tape of candidates debating and ask the kidlet who the kid liked. That was a fair strong predictor of electoral success. There's a few theories as to why, but my personal fave was the bullshit detector. Kids know when they are being bs'd and the kid was picking the one who did so less.
When I was studying polisci that was known as the six year old test - put a six year old in front of a tape of candidates debating and ask the kidlet who the kid liked. That was a fair strong predictor of electoral success. There's a few theories as to why, but my personal fave was the bullshit detector. Kids know when they are being bs'd and the kid was picking the one who did so less.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:44 AM (VtjlW)
148
Re Santorum's comment about women in combat. I think it was a flub, but to me it was a mistake on par with the "don't care about poor people," nothing more than that.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:44 AM (5H6zj)
149
All your base are belong to us!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 17, 2012 09:44 AM (f9c2L)
150
Great. The country is approaching an economic breakpoint (Goldwater, 1976) or meltdown.. Let's analyze all the candidates' votes for ethanol subsidies pre, post, post-post some terrorist attack and see if they are flipping or flopping in the right direction.
Politicians change their positions all the time. Situations change, priorities change, views develop or decay.
If a politician never flip-flops they are not listening to their constituents and won't last long. That is how politics is supposed to 'work'.
Of course a majority of the voters effectively want no tax increase or a reduction in spending/gov't employment/benefits. Therein lies a big problem.
Regarding a brokered convention, James Polk did quite well (in spite of the Trist appointment). Of course, our current financial problems may be without solution barring a political revolution, peaceful or otherwise.
Politicians change their positions all the time. Situations change, priorities change, views develop or decay.
If a politician never flip-flops they are not listening to their constituents and won't last long. That is how politics is supposed to 'work'.
Of course a majority of the voters effectively want no tax increase or a reduction in spending/gov't employment/benefits. Therein lies a big problem.
Regarding a brokered convention, James Polk did quite well (in spite of the Trist appointment). Of course, our current financial problems may be without solution barring a political revolution, peaceful or otherwise.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 17, 2012 09:44 AM (eEfYn)
151
Likeability ALWAYS plays a massive role in national elections. I'm no fan of GWB's policies, but he's pretty damn personable. Same thing with Billy Jeff. He's a disgusting sleazebag, but if I'm completely honest with myself I'll bet he's a blast to play a round of golf with.
Such is life.
Such is life.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:45 AM (zmlwq)
152
It's fine to have it down to the four we have (even Paul) if it results in discussing substantive issues, imho.
Posted by: Y-not under the influence at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (5H6zj)
That's just it -- we're not discussing substantive issues, we're throwing shit at the candidates to see what sticks. I'd watch a prize fight between talented contenders, but what we have now is four nerds in a limp-wristed slapfight. Enough.
It's fine to have it down to the four we have (even Paul) if it results in discussing substantive issues, imho.
Posted by: Y-not under the influence at February 17, 2012 09:40 AM (5H6zj)
That's just it -- we're not discussing substantive issues, we're throwing shit at the candidates to see what sticks. I'd watch a prize fight between talented contenders, but what we have now is four nerds in a limp-wristed slapfight. Enough.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 09:45 AM (RD7QR)
153
124 Renee Elmers if from NC. She beat out that scum Bob "who are you" Etheridge in the last election.
Oops, meant to say her and that woman from the Southwest who smacked Holder upside the head and basically told him he was responsible for the death of Brian Terry.
124 Renee Elmers if from NC. She beat out that scum Bob "who are you" Etheridge in the last election.
Oops, meant to say her and that woman from the Southwest who smacked Holder upside the head and basically told him he was responsible for the death of Brian Terry.
Posted by: runningrn at February 17, 2012 09:45 AM (vJ9tV)
154
Here's hoping that Ace reads his own blog today....
Posted by: Pimpbot 5000 at February 17, 2012 09:45 AM (ggRof)
155
"It's nice to elect the right people, but that isn't the way you
solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically
profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
Actually, that's 100% incorrect. you can never be sure of making any correct moves politically profitable enough to use that for trust in public officials. In fact, the only way to solve things is to have a limited government in which the wrong people can't do too much damage. That is how the US was built, not on the idea that politically self-interested people will do the right thing because it is politically advantageous at some point. That is a recipe for sure disaster.
No, the US is based on a totally different notion - restricting what the bad people can do in their positions of power. Of course, that was all based on the Constitution and law and shit, which no longer applies in the new, America Fundamentally Transformed. There are no limits on anyone's political power other than what they are willing to try. Barky has proven this, from the very start of being ineligible and having that slide (lest the cities riot or whatever) and he has destroyed any quaint notions Americans used to have about a limited government.
solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically
profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
Actually, that's 100% incorrect. you can never be sure of making any correct moves politically profitable enough to use that for trust in public officials. In fact, the only way to solve things is to have a limited government in which the wrong people can't do too much damage. That is how the US was built, not on the idea that politically self-interested people will do the right thing because it is politically advantageous at some point. That is a recipe for sure disaster.
No, the US is based on a totally different notion - restricting what the bad people can do in their positions of power. Of course, that was all based on the Constitution and law and shit, which no longer applies in the new, America Fundamentally Transformed. There are no limits on anyone's political power other than what they are willing to try. Barky has proven this, from the very start of being ineligible and having that slide (lest the cities riot or whatever) and he has destroyed any quaint notions Americans used to have about a limited government.
Posted by: really ... at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (iOOXO)
156
It's good to remind ourselves that the financial doom that most political junkies on the right see coming is probably farther down the road than we realize. It's probably not in 1 to 2 years, more like 5 to 10 years.
Umm, maybe it's just me, but 5 to 10 years is not that far away. Especially since that appears to be best case scenario.
Help us SMOD, etc.
Umm, maybe it's just me, but 5 to 10 years is not that far away. Especially since that appears to be best case scenario.
Help us SMOD, etc.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (VtjlW)
157
Brokered convention ---> McDonnell/Susana Martinez ... smiles all around (well except in the White House, and Romney's various mansions and yachts).
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (nEUpB)
159
Do not worry earth beings. The Galactic Federation of Light, plus various High Councils from assorted universes and dimensions will save our collective bacon. Awaken and vibrate at a higher frequency! Ascend on 21.12.2012.
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (4q5tP) ****
I hope that website is a joke... but I suspect it isn't.
Wow.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (O6H8J)
****
No joke. There is a whole underground of people worldwide who take it very seriously. People who like to prostelytize random others on the import of positive energy fields. People who like to challenge Board Certified Neurologists that an increase in anti-seizure medication dosages for abeloved child who is sitting right there having continual mini spasasms is really just a paradigm of the western medical-big pharma industrial complex. People like my ex-wife, as a random example.
Yes, the hate keeps me warm.
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:15 AM (4q5tP) ****
I hope that website is a joke... but I suspect it isn't.
Wow.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at February 17, 2012 09:35 AM (O6H8J)
****
No joke. There is a whole underground of people worldwide who take it very seriously. People who like to prostelytize random others on the import of positive energy fields. People who like to challenge Board Certified Neurologists that an increase in anti-seizure medication dosages for abeloved child who is sitting right there having continual mini spasasms is really just a paradigm of the western medical-big pharma industrial complex. People like my ex-wife, as a random example.
Yes, the hate keeps me warm.
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (4q5tP)
160
I had two friends just this week, once devout card-carrying ACLU liberals, horrified by another the thought of another four years of Obama sign up to work for the Romney campaign here in Ohio.
Pretty interesting to watch their conversion over the last few years.
Pretty interesting to watch their conversion over the last few years.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (pLTLS)
161
Given our choices in Rep candidates it's clear that we're headed for disaster no matter who is elected because none of them have the guts or the ability to fix what's wrong. If it's going to hell, let Obama own it. Perhaps then we will be rid of liberals forever.
Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (gre5a)
162
@151
I never liked Clinton. He comes off as a sleezy creep who hangs around the lounge of Holiday Inns near closing time and preys on women.
I have never understood why any women "like" guys like him or Teddy Kennedy.
I never liked Clinton. He comes off as a sleezy creep who hangs around the lounge of Holiday Inns near closing time and preys on women.
I have never understood why any women "like" guys like him or Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (5H6zj)
163
Ginned up? Perhaps....but in that case we're still talking about a man too fucking stupid to realize that he's just providing ammo to the enemy. Unless you think his comments truly reflect a widespread belief in the electorate as a whole and will resonate far beyond the flak they will incur, in which case I think you're out of your mind.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (zmlwq)
164
Brokered convention: Harding
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (lpWVn)
165
alexthechick, can't wait until the doom hits - then you end up like Europe.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:48 AM (WkuV6)
166
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:45 AM (zmlwq)
And hopefully after four years of America discovering what an unpleasant cocksucker Obama really is, they will toss his effete mom-jeans wearing ass out of the White House.
And hopefully after four years of America discovering what an unpleasant cocksucker Obama really is, they will toss his effete mom-jeans wearing ass out of the White House.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:48 AM (nEUpB)
167
If Santorum is the nominee, we will be blown out, and I will point back to this post and say "told you so".
But yes, let's kumbaya. Or hope Obama finally comes out of the fascist closet and announces he's the antichrist. Good luck!
But yes, let's kumbaya. Or hope Obama finally comes out of the fascist closet and announces he's the antichrist. Good luck!
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at February 17, 2012 09:48 AM (2okAn)
168
Why isn't Paul Ryan running again?
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at February 17, 2012 09:49 AM (2okAn)
169
162 @151 I never liked Clinton. He comes off as a sleezy creep who hangs around the lounge of Holiday Inns near closing time and preys on women. I have never understood why any women "like" guys like him or Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (5H6zj)
Ehhhhh....I've had a few friends like that. Great guys for me to hang around, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them in contact with my sister. Kind of like when she was a teenager and would occasionally come out to visit me when I was stationed in Arizona - definitely didn't want her hanging out around the barracks given who some of those guys were.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (5H6zj)
Ehhhhh....I've had a few friends like that. Great guys for me to hang around, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them in contact with my sister. Kind of like when she was a teenager and would occasionally come out to visit me when I was stationed in Arizona - definitely didn't want her hanging out around the barracks given who some of those guys were.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:50 AM (zmlwq)
170
I never liked Clinton. He comes off as a sleezy creep who hangs around the lounge of Holiday Inns near closing time and preys on women.
I loathe Bill Clinton on such a visceral level that I pretty much cannot discuss any substantive disputes I have with him because I know the loathing makes me utter irrational. He could come out in support of a federally subsidized Godiva program to provide me personally with free lifetime chocolate and I would reflexively oppose it.
He's scum. I don't get why women think otherwise. It has to be the Kissinger thing.
I loathe Bill Clinton on such a visceral level that I pretty much cannot discuss any substantive disputes I have with him because I know the loathing makes me utter irrational. He could come out in support of a federally subsidized Godiva program to provide me personally with free lifetime chocolate and I would reflexively oppose it.
He's scum. I don't get why women think otherwise. It has to be the Kissinger thing.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:51 AM (VtjlW)
171
166 Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:45 AM (zmlwq)And hopefully after four years of America discovering what an unpleasant cocksucker Obama really is, they will toss his effete mom-jeans wearing ass out of the White House.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:48 AM (nEUpB)
You know it, I know it, but then it doesn't really matter, does it? White liberal guilt always trumps likeability, and I'm always shocked by how many people think Obama's a swell guy even if they don't think he's a good president.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:48 AM (nEUpB)
You know it, I know it, but then it doesn't really matter, does it? White liberal guilt always trumps likeability, and I'm always shocked by how many people think Obama's a swell guy even if they don't think he's a good president.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:51 AM (zmlwq)
172
That's just it -- we're not discussing substantive issues, we're throwing shit at the candidates to see what sticks.
---
Yes, but in my opinion a lot of that stems from a desire to get the field reduced to the "safe" option (Mitt). I guess I am resisting the notion that we have to hurry up and settle on Romney in order to "save resources" or whatever.
I think Romney needs to address the substantive reasons a lot of folks are resisting him, so in that sense Santorum and Newt are really useful --- if they go with substantive attacks and put forth their own positive ideas.
It's weird that on the heels of Santorum's three-fer wins there was a rumor floating (attributed to Jen Rubin, iirc) that Mitt was going to make a big change to his tax plan and finally embrace a flat tax. But nothing materialized.
That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. Bolder moves by him, coupled with an explanation of what "Replace" would entail in his Repeal and Replace promise re Obamacare.
---
Yes, but in my opinion a lot of that stems from a desire to get the field reduced to the "safe" option (Mitt). I guess I am resisting the notion that we have to hurry up and settle on Romney in order to "save resources" or whatever.
I think Romney needs to address the substantive reasons a lot of folks are resisting him, so in that sense Santorum and Newt are really useful --- if they go with substantive attacks and put forth their own positive ideas.
It's weird that on the heels of Santorum's three-fer wins there was a rumor floating (attributed to Jen Rubin, iirc) that Mitt was going to make a big change to his tax plan and finally embrace a flat tax. But nothing materialized.
That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. Bolder moves by him, coupled with an explanation of what "Replace" would entail in his Repeal and Replace promise re Obamacare.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (5H6zj)
173
As Milton Friedman said, "It's nice to elect the right people, but that
isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it
politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
***
I suggested this in regards to Romney, but why not put it in front of all the Republican candidates...
Have each candidate sign a pledge that if in Jan 1 2015 that Obamacare is on the books, or the federal budget is even $1 higher then today they will resign the office.
We'd still have the Presidency since we would still have a VP. But it would create a *strong* incentive for Romney or Santorum to actually do what we are sending them to DC to do (and really what I am suggesting is the absolute minimum).
They wouldn't be legally obligated to resign, but it would be a powerful tool and difficult to explain away.
isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it
politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
***
I suggested this in regards to Romney, but why not put it in front of all the Republican candidates...
Have each candidate sign a pledge that if in Jan 1 2015 that Obamacare is on the books, or the federal budget is even $1 higher then today they will resign the office.
We'd still have the Presidency since we would still have a VP. But it would create a *strong* incentive for Romney or Santorum to actually do what we are sending them to DC to do (and really what I am suggesting is the absolute minimum).
They wouldn't be legally obligated to resign, but it would be a powerful tool and difficult to explain away.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (7BU4a)
174
I never liked Clinton. He comes off as a sleezy creep who hangs around the lounge of Holiday Inns near closing time and preys on women.
Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (5H6zj)
-------------------------------------------------
I think that it is nice that he would pray with women.
Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:47 AM (5H6zj)
-------------------------------------------------
I think that it is nice that he would pray with women.
Posted by: Emily Litella at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (jucos)
175
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.com
LOL! Look at his 'About me'. His name is Greg. Coincidence? I think not.
Uh, I mean... PISS!
LOL! Look at his 'About me'. His name is Greg. Coincidence? I think not.
Uh, I mean... PISS!
Posted by: Tourettes Guy at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (TJww4)
176
No joke. There is a whole underground of people worldwide who take it very seriously...
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (4q5tP)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The chemtrails drugs make people believe crazy things.
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:46 AM (4q5tP)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The chemtrails drugs make people believe crazy things.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (SzAZ7)
177
He's scum. I don't get why women think otherwise. It has to be the Kissinger thing.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:51 AM (VtjlW)
I can understand that much, but then what women go for is often a mystery to us non-ovary-having types.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:51 AM (VtjlW)
I can understand that much, but then what women go for is often a mystery to us non-ovary-having types.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:53 AM (zmlwq)
178
Anyone ever think that Romney is kinda happy that Santorum is still in the race? He's taking all of the focus off of Romney for a little while longer.
BigGovernment ran the numbers already, and it is mathematically impossible for Santorum to win the nomination - he isn't on the ballot in many states, and all of those states are winner-take-all.
At this point, Romney is the de facto nominee - all of this arguing is just so much spinning of wheels.....
Anyone ever think that Romney is kinda happy that Santorum is still in the race? He's taking all of the focus off of Romney for a little while longer.
BigGovernment ran the numbers already, and it is mathematically impossible for Santorum to win the nomination - he isn't on the ballot in many states, and all of those states are winner-take-all.
At this point, Romney is the de facto nominee - all of this arguing is just so much spinning of wheels.....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at February 17, 2012 09:53 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 09:54 AM (WkuV6)
180
How about have 'em sign a pledge that they are not exempt from obamacare?
Posted by: Justamom at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (Sptt8)
181
definitely didn't want her hanging out around the barracks given who some of those guys were.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:50 AM (zmlwq)
I wouldn't even bring my mom around the barracks.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:50 AM (zmlwq)
I wouldn't even bring my mom around the barracks.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (rX1N2)
182
The way I see it, Presidential nominees are almost always going to be milquetoast. It's the nature of the beast. Presidents have to appeal to a majority (or at least plurality) of Americans to be elected, and they are responsible for governing in the best interests of ALL Americans. This is why the firebrands rarely make it through the primaries.
The problem that many of us see this election cycle is that what we NEED is a firebrand; someone who can articulate the problems the country faces and who can make people understand and accept the hard changes that will have to be made as a result. But we're a country that's been under squishy leadership since Bush the Elder. The closest a lot of younger voters have gotten to a firebrand President is the SCOAMT himself, and look at what a gem he's turned out to be. So presidential voters are understandably gun shy. They want to go with someone safe, but they're resistant to Romney because he's a known entity, and what's known about him isn't terribly appealing. Romneycare is the killer there; Romneycare is Obamacare lite, and Obamacare is our firebrand commie President's signature legislation.
That's why we NEED -- flat out NEED -- to make sure we get a conservative legislature. There can be no hemming and hawing about that. It's partially as a way to control the power of the Oval Office, but more importantly a conservative legislature will prepare the country for what it's like to live under conservative governance. The ignorant and uneducated are terrified of what will happen if Uncle Sugar turns off the money faucets. Give them some time to see what happens when the economy is actually allowed to function and prosper without so muchgovernment intervention and that fear will fade. Then, come 2016 or 2020, the country will be ready for an actual conservativePresident. And by then our most promising newbies -- Allen West, Marco Rubio, maybe even Scott Walker -- will have enough executive experience that we'll be prepared for them to make a run for the White House.
The problem with all of this is that it takes time. But you can't mend thirty some-odd years of damage in the blink of an eye. What you CAN do is staunch the bleeding, stitch up the worst of the wounds, and then let the healingcontinue organically from there.
The problem that many of us see this election cycle is that what we NEED is a firebrand; someone who can articulate the problems the country faces and who can make people understand and accept the hard changes that will have to be made as a result. But we're a country that's been under squishy leadership since Bush the Elder. The closest a lot of younger voters have gotten to a firebrand President is the SCOAMT himself, and look at what a gem he's turned out to be. So presidential voters are understandably gun shy. They want to go with someone safe, but they're resistant to Romney because he's a known entity, and what's known about him isn't terribly appealing. Romneycare is the killer there; Romneycare is Obamacare lite, and Obamacare is our firebrand commie President's signature legislation.
That's why we NEED -- flat out NEED -- to make sure we get a conservative legislature. There can be no hemming and hawing about that. It's partially as a way to control the power of the Oval Office, but more importantly a conservative legislature will prepare the country for what it's like to live under conservative governance. The ignorant and uneducated are terrified of what will happen if Uncle Sugar turns off the money faucets. Give them some time to see what happens when the economy is actually allowed to function and prosper without so muchgovernment intervention and that fear will fade. Then, come 2016 or 2020, the country will be ready for an actual conservativePresident. And by then our most promising newbies -- Allen West, Marco Rubio, maybe even Scott Walker -- will have enough executive experience that we'll be prepared for them to make a run for the White House.
The problem with all of this is that it takes time. But you can't mend thirty some-odd years of damage in the blink of an eye. What you CAN do is staunch the bleeding, stitch up the worst of the wounds, and then let the healingcontinue organically from there.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (4df7R)
183
Andy, you are somewhat making the argument that I've been loathe to present: Romney has no core, which means he can be pushed to do the right thing, if the political condition favors it. I realize it's counter intuitive to think that having no spine is a benefit, but I'm pretty sure Romney would eat a white turd if he thought it would benefit him.
Posted by: MJ at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (/x4oj)
184
Have each candidate sign a pledge that if in Jan 1 2015 that Obamacare is on the books, or the federal budget is even $1 higher then today they will resign the office.
Not bad, but both of those things are actually out of a president's hands. Congress holds the purse strings. All we can honestly expect from a prez is that he delivers a sound budget to Congress, so then we know who to blame when we again incur a deficit the size of Greece's GNP.
Not bad, but both of those things are actually out of a president's hands. Congress holds the purse strings. All we can honestly expect from a prez is that he delivers a sound budget to Congress, so then we know who to blame when we again incur a deficit the size of Greece's GNP.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (zmlwq)
185
I'm pretty sure that comment made sense in *my* mind.
Damn Tylenol cold and flu....I hate February.
Damn Tylenol cold and flu....I hate February.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 17, 2012 09:56 AM (pLTLS)
186
Seriously, I know that Santorum will win and so my family is not voting for Santorum. We will vote because I work in politics, but I am voting libertarian.
Listen, I don't think people realize how much small L libertarians do not like Santorum. We do not like his positions.
It will feel real good knowing that I did not compromise my soul and it won't matter because Santorum will suffer the biggest defeat since Goldwater.
Which is funny because Goldwater and Santorum cannot be more different.
My neighbor told me he is voting for Santorum because he could not "honestly allow a Mormon in the White House" because he does not want "the Emerald City in Salt Lake to Control America."
He also knew I was Mormon, I tried to explain it to him and he told me not to try and that I was going to hell. We have been neighbors for 5 years and he was always pleasant. It was as if he was taken over by a crazy person.
I am not enabling that behavior. My family is voting libertarian if Santorum gets the nod.
I promise you 15% of the GOP will bolt if Santorum wins, we are not all hardcore libertarians but there are a lot of soft libertarians like me who think Santorum is just too much.
Listen, I don't think people realize how much small L libertarians do not like Santorum. We do not like his positions.
It will feel real good knowing that I did not compromise my soul and it won't matter because Santorum will suffer the biggest defeat since Goldwater.
Which is funny because Goldwater and Santorum cannot be more different.
My neighbor told me he is voting for Santorum because he could not "honestly allow a Mormon in the White House" because he does not want "the Emerald City in Salt Lake to Control America."
He also knew I was Mormon, I tried to explain it to him and he told me not to try and that I was going to hell. We have been neighbors for 5 years and he was always pleasant. It was as if he was taken over by a crazy person.
I am not enabling that behavior. My family is voting libertarian if Santorum gets the nod.
I promise you 15% of the GOP will bolt if Santorum wins, we are not all hardcore libertarians but there are a lot of soft libertarians like me who think Santorum is just too much.
Posted by: New Identity at February 17, 2012 09:57 AM (nMMma)
187
ascensionearth2012.blogspot.comLOL! Look at his 'About me'. His name is Greg. Coincidence? I think not.Uh, I mean... PISS!
****
The puka shell choker necklace really completes the look, doesn't it?
"I am a Starseed, incarnate of the Indigo Ray channel for the Galactic Federation and my Star Family from the Ashtar Command, an 11th dimensional Osequeq collective from the Star System Tauri C; ...I have incarnated at this time on assignment to advance my education and assist this planet and its people in their time of ascension to a higher dimensional existence."
****
The puka shell choker necklace really completes the look, doesn't it?
"I am a Starseed, incarnate of the Indigo Ray channel for the Galactic Federation and my Star Family from the Ashtar Command, an 11th dimensional Osequeq collective from the Star System Tauri C; ...I have incarnated at this time on assignment to advance my education and assist this planet and its people in their time of ascension to a higher dimensional existence."
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:57 AM (4q5tP)
188
I wouldn't even bring my mom around the barracks.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (rX1N2)
I wouldn't even bring my dog around the barracks.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (rX1N2)
I wouldn't even bring my dog around the barracks.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 09:58 AM (SzAZ7)
189
Im in ur primary, steeling ur nomnation
Posted by: LOLRICKY at February 17, 2012 09:58 AM (kaOJx)
190
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (zmlwq)
If our deficit was only the size of Greece's GDP I would be doing handstands.
Their GDP is about $310-billion.
If our deficit was only the size of Greece's GDP I would be doing handstands.
Their GDP is about $310-billion.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 09:58 AM (nEUpB)
191
It's good to remind ourselves that the financial doom that most political junkies on the right see coming is probably farther down the road than we realize. It's probably not in 1 to 2 years, more like 5 to 10 years. I could be wrong, but thats the impression I'm starting to get. The can kicking still has a ways to go.
We've got 3 years maximum mathematically before we hit the wall but "realization" moves that forward because when the edge of the cliff is clearly visible people panic andit will collapse before we reach the mathematical limit.
Besides Europe will blow first and drag us down with them well before we reach our endpoint because Timmay Geithner and SCoaMF were too stupid to ring fence our banks from the idiocy in Europe when they could have 2009.
Just relax and wait for the flash, the shockwave won't be far behind.
We've got 3 years maximum mathematically before we hit the wall but "realization" moves that forward because when the edge of the cliff is clearly visible people panic andit will collapse before we reach the mathematical limit.
Besides Europe will blow first and drag us down with them well before we reach our endpoint because Timmay Geithner and SCoaMF were too stupid to ring fence our banks from the idiocy in Europe when they could have 2009.
Just relax and wait for the flash, the shockwave won't be far behind.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at February 17, 2012 09:59 AM (6BgmB)
192
I am with the broken arm people. Mitt isn't great, but he beats the shit out of the alternative. Santorum would be the death of the party, he cannot win and we might not take the Senate. We are better off with a brokered convention than we are with Santorum. Romeny is a squish, but he is our squish. He isn't Christie, he isn't Jeb, he isn't Perry, but he is what we have. It hurts, but it is all we have. And he isn't innumerate, which puts him three steps in front of Barry.
On a side note, all this bullshit we have been hearing about negative campaigning making Romney unelectable is just that, bull shit. The press knows that Barry can't stand up to a withering barrage of negative campaign ads. Or in this case high doses of unfiltered truth. They have been protecting him thus far because they know he is a weak horse after his pathetic first term. Any time anything negative has been picked up in the press the administration goes on life support. They have a glass jaw, take Romney. Let the shit fly. Put that beautiful new poster from the RSC with the labor rates on every open chunk of wall and commercial break for the next 6 months and it is over.
The Cheney conspiracy, along those lines, somebody (I think Kaus) said HW the other day in a brokered convention. It was interesting. The really good candidates still get a shot in '16 and we get a candidate who hasn't been involved in the nasty partisan BS since Clinton with an amazing personal record. Also he gets to run on the 1 term platform. On the downside, he is older than Moses and he is a Bush. Thoughts?
On a side note, all this bullshit we have been hearing about negative campaigning making Romney unelectable is just that, bull shit. The press knows that Barry can't stand up to a withering barrage of negative campaign ads. Or in this case high doses of unfiltered truth. They have been protecting him thus far because they know he is a weak horse after his pathetic first term. Any time anything negative has been picked up in the press the administration goes on life support. They have a glass jaw, take Romney. Let the shit fly. Put that beautiful new poster from the RSC with the labor rates on every open chunk of wall and commercial break for the next 6 months and it is over.
The Cheney conspiracy, along those lines, somebody (I think Kaus) said HW the other day in a brokered convention. It was interesting. The really good candidates still get a shot in '16 and we get a candidate who hasn't been involved in the nasty partisan BS since Clinton with an amazing personal record. Also he gets to run on the 1 term platform. On the downside, he is older than Moses and he is a Bush. Thoughts?
Posted by: Gulfkraken at February 17, 2012 09:59 AM (WBfjO)
193
For those who don’t see the benefit of a brokered convention, let me take the “pro” side.
Elections are won by getting the turnout at the polls of an energetic and enthusiastic base. When people are anxious to vote, it brings along the mushy middle that is critical to win. In order to get the excitement, you need a candidate who either wraps up the primaries early with big majorities or you need someone totally new at the convention.
A long, bloody primary damages candidates and provides too much cannon fodder to the other side for the general election. A fresh, new candidate has the ability to let everyone wishcast all the best attributes they want on him (or her). This is how Obama generated the excitement he did with liberals – everyone saw what they wanted to see.
Once the math becomes evident that no present candidate can get the nomination on the first ballot, potential names will surface and MSM will go into overdrive trying to tear each one down. Of course, AoSHQ will do its part in the destruction process, because that’s just what we do, but that is unavoidable. Also, when it’s obvious there will be a brokered convention, the pressure on chosen delegates to pick the “right” person will so great that most will rise to the occasion and do what is best.
A real, barn burning, kickass open convention at precisely the same moment that everyone starts to pay attention to politics would be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.
Elections are won by getting the turnout at the polls of an energetic and enthusiastic base. When people are anxious to vote, it brings along the mushy middle that is critical to win. In order to get the excitement, you need a candidate who either wraps up the primaries early with big majorities or you need someone totally new at the convention.
A long, bloody primary damages candidates and provides too much cannon fodder to the other side for the general election. A fresh, new candidate has the ability to let everyone wishcast all the best attributes they want on him (or her). This is how Obama generated the excitement he did with liberals – everyone saw what they wanted to see.
Once the math becomes evident that no present candidate can get the nomination on the first ballot, potential names will surface and MSM will go into overdrive trying to tear each one down. Of course, AoSHQ will do its part in the destruction process, because that’s just what we do, but that is unavoidable. Also, when it’s obvious there will be a brokered convention, the pressure on chosen delegates to pick the “right” person will so great that most will rise to the occasion and do what is best.
A real, barn burning, kickass open convention at precisely the same moment that everyone starts to pay attention to politics would be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.
Posted by: jwest at February 17, 2012 09:59 AM (FdndL)
194
I can understand that much, but then what women go for is often a mystery to us non-ovary-having types.
Oh, trust me, it's just as much a mystery to ovary having types.
Oh, trust me, it's just as much a mystery to ovary having types.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:59 AM (VtjlW)
195
It's weird that on the heels of Santorum's three-fer wins there was a rumor floating (attributed to Jen Rubin, iirc) that Mitt was going to make a big change to his tax plan and finally embrace a flat tax. But nothing materialized.
That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. Bolder moves by him, coupled with an explanation of what "Replace" would entail in his Repeal and Replace promise re Obamacare.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (5H6zj)
You're en fuego today, but I think that's only because you're typing what I'm thinking before I get to post.
Romney is supposedly some supremely competent executive professional politician, but displays no political skill whatsoever. This is why I think Obama would cream him in the general. They both have the same achilles heel, and we know Obama displays even the ****most basic**** ability to say what needs to be said politically when it needs to be said.
Romney appears clueless for all his so-called competence.
That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. Bolder moves by him, coupled with an explanation of what "Replace" would entail in his Repeal and Replace promise re Obamacare.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (5H6zj)
You're en fuego today, but I think that's only because you're typing what I'm thinking before I get to post.
Romney is supposedly some supremely competent executive professional politician, but displays no political skill whatsoever. This is why I think Obama would cream him in the general. They both have the same achilles heel, and we know Obama displays even the ****most basic**** ability to say what needs to be said politically when it needs to be said.
Romney appears clueless for all his so-called competence.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 10:00 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 10:00 AM (SzAZ7)
197
"Goldwater, 1976" above?
"Newt-Goldwater 1976"
Legal Insurrection, by William A. Jacobsen, Cornell Law School:
"Newt’s conservatism isn’t something concocted by campaign
strategists, he’s lived it his entire political life and fought battles
which would have made lesser candidates run against conservatism just to
get elected. It’s a wonder that the convenient conservatives are so demeaning, but
that’s the age we live in, and apparently our presumptive future."
"Newt-Goldwater 1976"
Legal Insurrection, by William A. Jacobsen, Cornell Law School:
"Newt’s conservatism isn’t something concocted by campaign
strategists, he’s lived it his entire political life and fought battles
which would have made lesser candidates run against conservatism just to
get elected. It’s a wonder that the convenient conservatives are so demeaning, but
that’s the age we live in, and apparently our presumptive future."
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 10:00 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Fox2! at February 17, 2012 10:01 AM (RJOgX)
199
Hear, hear! A nice note of sanity. Thank you, Andy.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 17, 2012 10:02 AM (i0App)
200
"Newt is going to form a swingers' club on the moon.
[63]... was the one thing about Newt I liked."
I should have known Lacey would beat me to it.
Alas, I'm single and can't go :^/
[63]... was the one thing about Newt I liked."
I should have known Lacey would beat me to it.
Alas, I'm single and can't go :^/
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:02 AM (QTHTd)
201
Great post, great point, and the perfect rejoinder to Uncle Meat Gabe in the previous one.
Posted by: Ed Snyder at February 17, 2012 10:02 AM (DImal)
202
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 09:59 AM (VtjlW)
Careful about telling the truth about women. They'll kick you out of the "All of My Wants and Desires Are Unfathomable" club.
Careful about telling the truth about women. They'll kick you out of the "All of My Wants and Desires Are Unfathomable" club.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 10:02 AM (nEUpB)
203
They consistently told me every time Santorum started talking, "I don't like this guy."
///////////////////
IIRC, that was the main theme during live blogging every single time Santorum started to speak. It was my impression as well. Likeability is extremely important. Low info voters, and there are far, far more of them than we think, will get the same impression we got during the debates. He comes across as an arrogant asshole. He doesn't have a warm personality. Can't shrug that off. Not up against the Chicago Messiah and his dazzling, black guy smile.
///////////////////
IIRC, that was the main theme during live blogging every single time Santorum started to speak. It was my impression as well. Likeability is extremely important. Low info voters, and there are far, far more of them than we think, will get the same impression we got during the debates. He comes across as an arrogant asshole. He doesn't have a warm personality. Can't shrug that off. Not up against the Chicago Messiah and his dazzling, black guy smile.
Posted by: Lady in Black.....{waiting for SMOD} at February 17, 2012 10:03 AM (F+Xfj)
204
178 -- its all about prolonging the fight and dragging Romney to the right or hoping for a miracle at a brokered convention. I get a choice of Mittens and Paul; so my only hope is a convention fight.
Posted by: Jean at February 17, 2012 10:03 AM (WkuV6)
205
Henry Kissinger is G.R.O.S.S.! Way too old.
Posted by: Helen Thomas at February 17, 2012 10:04 AM (jucos)
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 10:04 AM (lpWVn)
207
Posted by: Ed Snyder at February 17, 2012 10:02 AM (DImal)
Lay off Gabe. You sounded like a knuckle-dragger in his post. Everything was an ad hominem attack.
Lay off Gabe. You sounded like a knuckle-dragger in his post. Everything was an ad hominem attack.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 10:05 AM (nEUpB)
208
To add a little more perspective, let me quote this Weasel Zippers headline from just this morning:
-------------
Ego-Maniac-In-Chief Marks Congress Payroll Tax Deal By Citing Himself 5 Times In Only 2 Paragraphs…
President Obama's statement on the tax-unemployment deal, as provided by the White House:
"Leaders of both parties have done the right thing for our families and for our economy by reaching an agreement that will prevent a tax hike on 160 million working Americans. I urge Congress to pass this agreement so that the payroll tax cut we put in place last year will not expire at the end of this month. The typical American family will still see an extra $40 in every paycheck, keeping nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money this year. And millions of Americans who are out pounding the pavement looking for new work to support their families will still be able to depend on the vital lifeline of unemployment insurance.
"I thank the many Americans who lent their voices to this debate in recent months. You made all the difference. This is real money that will make a real difference in people’s lives. It includes important reforms that I proposed in the American Jobs Act to help discourage businesses from laying off workers and to connect workers with jobs. It includes a critical element in the plan I outlined in the State of the Union to out-innovate the rest of the world by unleashing mobile broadband, investing in innovation, and building a nationwide public safety network. It will mean a stronger economy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. And as soon as Congress sends this bipartisan agreement to my desk, I will sign it into law right away. But this must be only the start of what we do together this year. There’s much more the American people need and expect from us — to help our businesses keep creating jobs, to help restore security for middle class families, and to leave an economy that’s built to last."
--------------
The egotistical little prick needs to go.
-------------
Ego-Maniac-In-Chief Marks Congress Payroll Tax Deal By Citing Himself 5 Times In Only 2 Paragraphs…
President Obama's statement on the tax-unemployment deal, as provided by the White House:
"Leaders of both parties have done the right thing for our families and for our economy by reaching an agreement that will prevent a tax hike on 160 million working Americans. I urge Congress to pass this agreement so that the payroll tax cut we put in place last year will not expire at the end of this month. The typical American family will still see an extra $40 in every paycheck, keeping nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money this year. And millions of Americans who are out pounding the pavement looking for new work to support their families will still be able to depend on the vital lifeline of unemployment insurance.
"I thank the many Americans who lent their voices to this debate in recent months. You made all the difference. This is real money that will make a real difference in people’s lives. It includes important reforms that I proposed in the American Jobs Act to help discourage businesses from laying off workers and to connect workers with jobs. It includes a critical element in the plan I outlined in the State of the Union to out-innovate the rest of the world by unleashing mobile broadband, investing in innovation, and building a nationwide public safety network. It will mean a stronger economy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. And as soon as Congress sends this bipartisan agreement to my desk, I will sign it into law right away. But this must be only the start of what we do together this year. There’s much more the American people need and expect from us — to help our businesses keep creating jobs, to help restore security for middle class families, and to leave an economy that’s built to last."
--------------
The egotistical little prick needs to go.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 17, 2012 10:05 AM (4df7R)
209
Obama loses the election if the election is about leadership, particularly as it relates to the economy and the size and scope of government. Talking about fucking contraception, and gay marriage, and any other socially conservative talking points lets him off the hook such that he coasts, COASTS, to victory in November.
The conservative voters are going to vote for the conservative candidate, they don't have to be won over. The independents are going to vote for the candidate that aligns with their thinking on the economy and, more generally, the scope of government (i.e.; Obamacare). Santorum will be targeted by Obama, as he is now being targeted by the MSM, for his social conservative views, to the point where is ability to talk about the stuff that hurts Obama is neutered.
Romney is the only candidate that can run on a platform that hurts Obama. And the Left knows that. And you Santorum/Gingrich/Paul folks are way to happy to play along.
The conservative voters are going to vote for the conservative candidate, they don't have to be won over. The independents are going to vote for the candidate that aligns with their thinking on the economy and, more generally, the scope of government (i.e.; Obamacare). Santorum will be targeted by Obama, as he is now being targeted by the MSM, for his social conservative views, to the point where is ability to talk about the stuff that hurts Obama is neutered.
Romney is the only candidate that can run on a platform that hurts Obama. And the Left knows that. And you Santorum/Gingrich/Paul folks are way to happy to play along.
Posted by: steve walsh at February 17, 2012 10:05 AM (ANvDa)
210
The puka shell choker necklace really completes the look, doesn't it?
"I am a Starseed, incarnate of the Indigo Ray channel for the
Galactic Federation and my Star Family from the Ashtar Command, an 11th
dimensional Osequeq collective from the Star System Tauri C; ...I have
incarnated at this time on assignment to advance my education and assist
this planet and its people in their time of ascension to a higher
dimensional existence."
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:57 AM (4q5tP)
I went and looked because I thought you were joking. Wow. This is either the most complex joke of all time or a particularly granular and nuanced psychosis. Oy.
"I am a Starseed, incarnate of the Indigo Ray channel for the
Galactic Federation and my Star Family from the Ashtar Command, an 11th
dimensional Osequeq collective from the Star System Tauri C; ...I have
incarnated at this time on assignment to advance my education and assist
this planet and its people in their time of ascension to a higher
dimensional existence."
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 09:57 AM (4q5tP)
I went and looked because I thought you were joking. Wow. This is either the most complex joke of all time or a particularly granular and nuanced psychosis. Oy.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 10:06 AM (RD7QR)
211
@ 114 As a Virginian, let me point out a few things.
1)McDonnell's goofball quotes resided far in the past. He wasn't spouting off about any such things within a year or two of the election.
Fair enough, though the point is that the *MSM* still made a big deal about it, and it failed to resonate beyond the already hyperventilating core of liberals and cultural libertarians who hyperventilate anywise.
2)McDonnell is far more skilled as a retail politician than Santorum. Funny you should mention 19 points - wasn't that the margin when Santorum got destroyed by a guy who can barely speak without drooling? As an INCUMBENT, no less?
I've pointed out elsewhere why this isn't really the great argument that anti-Santorum people (i'm a Newt guy, btw) think it is. Santorum lost in one of the worst Republican years on record, to a popular Democrat statewide office holder whose daddy was also the most popular governour of PA in living memory, while also having simultaneously pissed off his base with the Specter endorsement, among other things (there are Pennsylvanians who are STILL pissed about that).
McDonnell, on the other hand, was elected during one of the BEST Republican years on record, against a very poor opponent. Trying to compare the two in electability terms is simply not feasible.
3)McDonnell didn't run as a culture warrior at all. For all I know his beliefs are identical to Santorum's. The difference is, McDonnell's smart enough to keep that stuff very low-key. He showed excellent discipline in hammering on the economy throughout the election.
Really, I see no reason to think Santorum won't focus on economic issues were he nominated. Remember - we're still in the primary season. Given the dynamics of a pruimary vs. the general, there is necessarily a shift in emphases. Plus, I really don't see how Santorum is "running on social issues." He's not. He's talking about fiscal issues. That's MOST of what he's talking about, in fact. It's just that you have a lot of wishcasting libertarians who focus on the minority of social issue talk because, let's be frank, it really, really pisses them off that somebody might not agree with them on social issues, so that is what draws their attention like flies to cowpies.
4)McDonnell was a popular sitting AG facing a really laughably bad Dem opponent. Whatever you or I may think about Bozo the President, he's got a hardcore base of support that would walk through fire to vote for the shithead. He's also black, so the press is even more subservient and fawning towards him than they usually are towards Dems. It's a much tougher slog.
It'll be a tougher slog, true, for ANYBODY. And the way Romney's tanking with independents, I just don't think there's a case to be made that Santorum is going to appeal to them *less* than Myth ORomney already is.
Which is, of course, why we should nominate Newt.
1)McDonnell's goofball quotes resided far in the past. He wasn't spouting off about any such things within a year or two of the election.
Fair enough, though the point is that the *MSM* still made a big deal about it, and it failed to resonate beyond the already hyperventilating core of liberals and cultural libertarians who hyperventilate anywise.
2)McDonnell is far more skilled as a retail politician than Santorum. Funny you should mention 19 points - wasn't that the margin when Santorum got destroyed by a guy who can barely speak without drooling? As an INCUMBENT, no less?
I've pointed out elsewhere why this isn't really the great argument that anti-Santorum people (i'm a Newt guy, btw) think it is. Santorum lost in one of the worst Republican years on record, to a popular Democrat statewide office holder whose daddy was also the most popular governour of PA in living memory, while also having simultaneously pissed off his base with the Specter endorsement, among other things (there are Pennsylvanians who are STILL pissed about that).
McDonnell, on the other hand, was elected during one of the BEST Republican years on record, against a very poor opponent. Trying to compare the two in electability terms is simply not feasible.
3)McDonnell didn't run as a culture warrior at all. For all I know his beliefs are identical to Santorum's. The difference is, McDonnell's smart enough to keep that stuff very low-key. He showed excellent discipline in hammering on the economy throughout the election.
Really, I see no reason to think Santorum won't focus on economic issues were he nominated. Remember - we're still in the primary season. Given the dynamics of a pruimary vs. the general, there is necessarily a shift in emphases. Plus, I really don't see how Santorum is "running on social issues." He's not. He's talking about fiscal issues. That's MOST of what he's talking about, in fact. It's just that you have a lot of wishcasting libertarians who focus on the minority of social issue talk because, let's be frank, it really, really pisses them off that somebody might not agree with them on social issues, so that is what draws their attention like flies to cowpies.
4)McDonnell was a popular sitting AG facing a really laughably bad Dem opponent. Whatever you or I may think about Bozo the President, he's got a hardcore base of support that would walk through fire to vote for the shithead. He's also black, so the press is even more subservient and fawning towards him than they usually are towards Dems. It's a much tougher slog.
It'll be a tougher slog, true, for ANYBODY. And the way Romney's tanking with independents, I just don't think there's a case to be made that Santorum is going to appeal to them *less* than Myth ORomney already is.
Which is, of course, why we should nominate Newt.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 10:06 AM (+inic)
212
I just don't get it--Romney eagerly bought nearly the entire McCain's blueprint to win the nomination: 1) Line up big names, 2) Win NH, 3) Encourage lesser candidates to stay and split the remaining vote. EXCEPT for the one thing that McCain did win NH--talk like a conservative, say what they want to hear, and actively go out of your way to appeal to conservatives. And he kept that up right until it came time to defeat Obama. But, it did give conservatives an excuse to talk themselves into supporting him. Instead, I guess Romney figured big piles of money would make up for that.
Romney needs a Bain Capital to come in, take over and fire the deadwood management of his Presidential campaign and shake things up--he could sew this nomination up next week very easily with a simple change in tactics. But, the current management is too entrenched, too protected and uninterested in the long-term success of the enterprise.
Romney needs a Bain Capital to come in, take over and fire the deadwood management of his Presidential campaign and shake things up--he could sew this nomination up next week very easily with a simple change in tactics. But, the current management is too entrenched, too protected and uninterested in the long-term success of the enterprise.
Posted by: Affirmative Action & Lowered Expectations at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (7jkW7)
213
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 09:52 AM (5H6zj)
What frustrates me is his lack of imagination. Not "Moon Base" stuff, but I want to hear something other than "we can fix this because I am a smart businessman."
What frustrates me is his lack of imagination. Not "Moon Base" stuff, but I want to hear something other than "we can fix this because I am a smart businessman."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (nEUpB)
214
"The press knows that Barry can't stand up to a withering barrage of
negative campaign ads. Or in this case high doses of unfiltered truth."
But who's going to dare put out negative campaign ads? I mean, other than Crowder and a few Youtubers. (Leaving aside how brutal we want to be with the truth.)
negative campaign ads. Or in this case high doses of unfiltered truth."
But who's going to dare put out negative campaign ads? I mean, other than Crowder and a few Youtubers. (Leaving aside how brutal we want to be with the truth.)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (QTHTd)
215
178
Anyone ever think that Romney is kinda happy that Santorum is still
in the race? He's taking all of the focus off of Romney for a little
while longer.
BigGovernment ran the numbers already, and it is
mathematically impossible for Santorum to win the nomination - he isn't
on the ballot in many states, and all of those states are
winner-take-all.
At this point, Romney is the de facto nominee - all of this arguing is just so much spinning of wheels.....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at February 17, 2012 09:53 AM (0xqzf)
So he's running for VP on the "You slutty JEZEBEL!" ticket. Great.
Anyone ever think that Romney is kinda happy that Santorum is still
in the race? He's taking all of the focus off of Romney for a little
while longer.
BigGovernment ran the numbers already, and it is
mathematically impossible for Santorum to win the nomination - he isn't
on the ballot in many states, and all of those states are
winner-take-all.
At this point, Romney is the de facto nominee - all of this arguing is just so much spinning of wheels.....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at February 17, 2012 09:53 AM (0xqzf)
So he's running for VP on the "You slutty JEZEBEL!" ticket. Great.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (RD7QR)
216
As much as Santorum scares me, we only have to blame Mittens who ran a dreadful campaign. I also blame Perry for being an awful candidate.
If Mitt apologized for Obamacare in 2009, we would not likely be having this conversation about freaking out over Santorum.
But like I said, I am NOT voting for Santorum.
If Mitt apologized for Obamacare in 2009, we would not likely be having this conversation about freaking out over Santorum.
But like I said, I am NOT voting for Santorum.
Posted by: New Identity at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (nMMma)
217
Food thread? Please? Anything but this incessant lather, rinse repeat. Obviously today is already shot, but can you take my suggestion seriously for next week? Please? I love this place but the every-thread battle is wearing me down.
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 10:08 AM (OmL1S)
218
"I should have known Lacey would beat me to it." ... um, except that that was alexthechick, not Lacey.
I'm still a little high from last night. Forgive me, both of you.
Good news though, the contact lens stayed in and my vision might even be getting better!
I'm still a little high from last night. Forgive me, both of you.
Good news though, the contact lens stayed in and my vision might even be getting better!
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:09 AM (QTHTd)
219
embrace the evil, republicans. Admit you're medicine, not sugar. And yes, either of these three guys are better than SCAOMF
Posted by: joeindc44 at February 17, 2012 10:09 AM (S9InG)
220
But who's going to dare put out negative campaign ads? I mean, other
than Crowder and a few Youtubers. (Leaving aside how brutal we want to
be with the truth.)
Fair, but the the major networks aren't going to turn down more than $500 million in ad dollars. Money talks and shit walks.
Entirely silencing a camping for the presidency is going to draw some attention.
than Crowder and a few Youtubers. (Leaving aside how brutal we want to
be with the truth.)
Fair, but the the major networks aren't going to turn down more than $500 million in ad dollars. Money talks and shit walks.
Entirely silencing a camping for the presidency is going to draw some attention.
Posted by: Gulfkraken at February 17, 2012 10:09 AM (WBfjO)
221
Re the likability factor.
In my drunken haze yesterday I got Mr Y-not to talk politics (something he's not really into). I was surprised to discover that he really loathes Romney. What really surprised me was that he even loathed him in 2008. Very visceral reaction to what he sees is a guy who has no moral core. He described him as a "star chamber" kind of guy.
He likes Newt the best of the three and enjoys listening to him, but he did think Newt is homely. Personally, I don't see Newt as homely myself -- he's just kind of a "dad" type to me.
Anyway, fwiw, it's important to realize that there are segments of folks who have visceral reactions for and against all of these guys. Our job will be to help package up whoever the nominee is to make him acceptable to people on rational grounds, which may help counter any emotional negatives they carry.
Personally, I kind of like Newt. I am a complete meh on Santorum. And I really dislike Romney. But I will vote for any of them in November (barring some bizarre revelation).
In my drunken haze yesterday I got Mr Y-not to talk politics (something he's not really into). I was surprised to discover that he really loathes Romney. What really surprised me was that he even loathed him in 2008. Very visceral reaction to what he sees is a guy who has no moral core. He described him as a "star chamber" kind of guy.
He likes Newt the best of the three and enjoys listening to him, but he did think Newt is homely. Personally, I don't see Newt as homely myself -- he's just kind of a "dad" type to me.
Anyway, fwiw, it's important to realize that there are segments of folks who have visceral reactions for and against all of these guys. Our job will be to help package up whoever the nominee is to make him acceptable to people on rational grounds, which may help counter any emotional negatives they carry.
Personally, I kind of like Newt. I am a complete meh on Santorum. And I really dislike Romney. But I will vote for any of them in November (barring some bizarre revelation).
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:10 AM (5H6zj)
222
The chemtrails drugs make people believe crazy things.
--------
One thing about most of the musings I have seen from 'those' people is their consistency. They criticized W. Bush for many things related to the conduct of the War on Terror. They criticize Obama for the same policies when used in the War on Man-Caused Disasters. That is more than can be said for the mainstream Democrats and their fellow travelers.
--------
One thing about most of the musings I have seen from 'those' people is their consistency. They criticized W. Bush for many things related to the conduct of the War on Terror. They criticize Obama for the same policies when used in the War on Man-Caused Disasters. That is more than can be said for the mainstream Democrats and their fellow travelers.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 17, 2012 10:10 AM (eEfYn)
223
Danger Girl - See Paula Deen's new bible of southern cooking. It makes the path to diabetes look amazing. Butter cakes are just as good as they sound.
Posted by: Gulfkraken at February 17, 2012 10:11 AM (WBfjO)
224
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 10:08 AM (OmL1S)
I marinated a pork tenderloin in chipotle and honey, and then roasted it this morning. when I took it out of the oven I had to resist the temptation to have roast pork for breakfast.
I would have, but it didn't seem to go well with my coffee.
I marinated a pork tenderloin in chipotle and honey, and then roasted it this morning. when I took it out of the oven I had to resist the temptation to have roast pork for breakfast.
I would have, but it didn't seem to go well with my coffee.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 10:11 AM (nEUpB)
225
But who's going to dare put out negative campaign ads? I mean, other than Crowder and a few Youtubers. (Leaving aside how brutal we want to be with the truth.)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (QTHTd)
*whistling*
Longbow PAC.
Just sayin'.
And yes, I'm totally in the bag for an actual Longbow PAC. I just have no idea how such a thing would work, or what I could do in support of it. But I'm willing to try!
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:07 AM (QTHTd)
*whistling*
Longbow PAC.
Just sayin'.
And yes, I'm totally in the bag for an actual Longbow PAC. I just have no idea how such a thing would work, or what I could do in support of it. But I'm willing to try!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 17, 2012 10:12 AM (4df7R)
226
"So [Santorum]'s running for VP on the "You slutty JEZEBEL!" ticket. Great."
And now I'm worried there's be a tape of him with a ball gag being flogged by some six foot Samoan dominatrix.
And now I'm worried there's be a tape of him with a ball gag being flogged by some six foot Samoan dominatrix.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:12 AM (QTHTd)
227
Union Worker for Bankrupt GM? You get a $7k bonus along with your ownership stake in the company that just posted a record profit on the taxpayers dime.
Average American? 40 bucks every two weeks in "continued savings".
But look! Santorum wears sweater vests!!!! Harumph harumph harumph!!!!
Average American? 40 bucks every two weeks in "continued savings".
But look! Santorum wears sweater vests!!!! Harumph harumph harumph!!!!
Posted by: Bob_B at February 17, 2012 10:12 AM (4tnQK)
228
Mitt could do one thing, and one thing only to bring me and a whole slew of people from his base and even the middle and center left into his camp screaming and cheering: renounce RomneyCare orforget the "replace" part of "Repeal and Replace".
He HAS to know this because he's so smart and sooper confident, yet why he doesn't do this is remains a mystery (unless you consider the quite probable option that he has no intention...ever.)
He HAS to know this because he's so smart and sooper confident, yet why he doesn't do this is remains a mystery (unless you consider the quite probable option that he has no intention...ever.)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 10:13 AM (rX1N2)
229
Good news though, the contact lens stayed in and my vision might even be getting better!
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:09 AM (QTHTd)
That is good news. Hope you have a complete restoration of your eyesight.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:09 AM (QTHTd)
That is good news. Hope you have a complete restoration of your eyesight.
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 10:13 AM (4q5tP)
230
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:10 AM (5H6zj)
Okay...what revelation about any of these candidates would prevent you from voting for them over the JEF?
And I assume that what you meant was "not vote," rather than vote for the SCOAMF.
Okay...what revelation about any of these candidates would prevent you from voting for them over the JEF?
And I assume that what you meant was "not vote," rather than vote for the SCOAMF.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 17, 2012 10:13 AM (nEUpB)
231
@213
Yeah, me too.
And I don't think he's malleable. His lack of core doesn't translate into doing what we want, at least based on how he's campaigned so far.
FWIW, I think the moon base stuff was way overplayed. I've completely shut it off. But I don't hate NASA the way some folks do and I would much prefer that space exploration be in the hands of the military than Google or some private firm.
Yeah, me too.
And I don't think he's malleable. His lack of core doesn't translate into doing what we want, at least based on how he's campaigned so far.
FWIW, I think the moon base stuff was way overplayed. I've completely shut it off. But I don't hate NASA the way some folks do and I would much prefer that space exploration be in the hands of the military than Google or some private firm.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:13 AM (5H6zj)
232
And now I'm worried there's be a tape of him with a ball gag being flogged by some six foot Samoan dominatrix.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:12 AM (QTHTd)
I dunno. That might draw a significant number of Democrats if he released it widely.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:12 AM (QTHTd)
I dunno. That might draw a significant number of Democrats if he released it widely.
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 10:14 AM (RD7QR)
233
"But we're a country that's been under squishy leadership since Bush the Elder."
Squishy referencing US Citizenship squashed by government thugs.
It isn't as if CIA Director Bush the Elder didn't know what he was doing from the Oval Office. It isn't as if Americans today are stronger citizens or enjoy a strong economy following squishy leadership.
Squishy referencing US Citizenship squashed by government thugs.
It isn't as if CIA Director Bush the Elder didn't know what he was doing from the Oval Office. It isn't as if Americans today are stronger citizens or enjoy a strong economy following squishy leadership.
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 10:15 AM (lpWVn)
234
Posted by: joncelli at February 17, 2012 10:06 AM (RD7QR)
I notice that the anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared and now we are missing millions from the labor force. Maybe Starseed is on to something.
I notice that the anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared and now we are missing millions from the labor force. Maybe Starseed is on to something.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 10:15 AM (SzAZ7)
235
@224 that sounds absolutely delicious. I do love me some pork tenderloin. I usually do mine in a garlic/beer/dijon/rosemary marinade that you boil down, add cream to and use as a sauce, but honey and chipotle sounds amazing!
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 10:15 AM (OmL1S)
236
Andy,
Well put. I had lunch with Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, yesterday and he basically said we have about 10 years before the entire ball of wax melts. The main problem are the boomers aging out of the work force and living too long and expecting all this shit they have paid for for 40 years to be paid to them AKA SS and Medicare.
He had no hope that anything but another 10 year patch would be enacted when all shit hits the fan.
I guess Al Gore's "lock box" didn't work.
SMOD here we come!
Well put. I had lunch with Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, yesterday and he basically said we have about 10 years before the entire ball of wax melts. The main problem are the boomers aging out of the work force and living too long and expecting all this shit they have paid for for 40 years to be paid to them AKA SS and Medicare.
He had no hope that anything but another 10 year patch would be enacted when all shit hits the fan.
I guess Al Gore's "lock box" didn't work.
SMOD here we come!
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 17, 2012 10:16 AM (hXJOG)
237
Okay...what revelation about any of these candidates would prevent you from voting for them over the JEF?
---
Oh, Lord, I don't know. I suppose if it turned out that one of their main "qualifications" was a load of crock or if there was a something really egregious about their morality (and I don't put cheating on a wife in that category).
---
Oh, Lord, I don't know. I suppose if it turned out that one of their main "qualifications" was a load of crock or if there was a something really egregious about their morality (and I don't put cheating on a wife in that category).
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:17 AM (5H6zj)
238
And yes, I'm totally in the bag for an actual Longbow PAC. I just have
no idea how such a thing would work, or what I could do in support of
it. But I'm willing to try!
We need a Longbow PAC discussion. One with out (let's be honest: with fewer) other conversations running through it.
Sooth and I came up with some spoofs on the Allstate Mayhem commercials, yesterday. I'm sure we have much more creative morons in our midst as well. I hit the high points of the things we'll need, and a lot of it is going to take funding. But it is doable.
no idea how such a thing would work, or what I could do in support of
it. But I'm willing to try!
We need a Longbow PAC discussion. One with out (let's be honest: with fewer) other conversations running through it.
Sooth and I came up with some spoofs on the Allstate Mayhem commercials, yesterday. I'm sure we have much more creative morons in our midst as well. I hit the high points of the things we'll need, and a lot of it is going to take funding. But it is doable.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 17, 2012 10:18 AM (8y9MW)
239
Well said Andy, lets not die for our guys, lets make the other guys die for theirs. And they have to run a marxist tax-raising big-spending gun-running girly-man constitution-bashing scum-sucking SOB.
So I will take whatever we come up with.
Well said Andy, lets not die for our guys, lets make the other guys die for theirs. And they have to run a marxist tax-raising big-spending gun-running girly-man constitution-bashing scum-sucking SOB.
So I will take whatever we come up with.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 17, 2012 10:18 AM (r+9M6)
240
"The topic came up again later in the conversation, when Bolling brought
up the possibility of a brokered convention in August. “If it does get
to that,” Bolling asked, “and someone said ‘Governor, would you be
interested,’ would you be interested?” Palin began her answer asserting
that she saw the possibility of a brokered convention as a very real
one. “If it had to be kind of closed up today, the whole nominating
process, then we would be looking at a brokered convention,” she
responded, since “nobody is quite there yet.” If it came to a brokered
convention, “all bets are off as to who it will be willing to offer
themselves up in the name of service to their country.” She added only
that she “would be willing to help any way that I can,” which is about
as open a declaration of a brokered convention candidacy she could give–
and, as is her wont, she elaborated no more than that." http://tinyurl.com/8a5746k
Have had several libs tell me they are looking forward to watching a brokered convention with Jeb versus Sarah.
up the possibility of a brokered convention in August. “If it does get
to that,” Bolling asked, “and someone said ‘Governor, would you be
interested,’ would you be interested?” Palin began her answer asserting
that she saw the possibility of a brokered convention as a very real
one. “If it had to be kind of closed up today, the whole nominating
process, then we would be looking at a brokered convention,” she
responded, since “nobody is quite there yet.” If it came to a brokered
convention, “all bets are off as to who it will be willing to offer
themselves up in the name of service to their country.” She added only
that she “would be willing to help any way that I can,” which is about
as open a declaration of a brokered convention candidacy she could give–
and, as is her wont, she elaborated no more than that." http://tinyurl.com/8a5746k
Have had several libs tell me they are looking forward to watching a brokered convention with Jeb versus Sarah.
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 10:20 AM (oZfic)
241
Hey everyone, here's a handy reference guide for when the next Santorum thread comes up:
The Libertarians Guide to Social Conservatives - you're resource for understanding what SoCons really mean when they make their weird, wacky statements.
When the SoCon says ............ The SoCon really means
"I support teaching abstinance in sex education" ..... "We should ban sex"
"I oppose abortion" ..... "We should ban sex"
"Contraception is a public policy issue" ..... "We should ban sex"
"I oppose gay marriage" ..... "We should ban sex"
"Pornography exploits vulnerable young women" ..... "We should ban sex"
"Drug use hurts families" ..... "We should ban sex"
"The cultural degradation in America is terrible" ..... "We should ban sex"
"I'm a values voter" ..... "We should ban sex"
I hope this guide proves useful in future discussions.
The Libertarians Guide to Social Conservatives - you're resource for understanding what SoCons really mean when they make their weird, wacky statements.
When the SoCon says ............ The SoCon really means
"I support teaching abstinance in sex education" ..... "We should ban sex"
"I oppose abortion" ..... "We should ban sex"
"Contraception is a public policy issue" ..... "We should ban sex"
"I oppose gay marriage" ..... "We should ban sex"
"Pornography exploits vulnerable young women" ..... "We should ban sex"
"Drug use hurts families" ..... "We should ban sex"
"The cultural degradation in America is terrible" ..... "We should ban sex"
"I'm a values voter" ..... "We should ban sex"
I hope this guide proves useful in future discussions.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 10:21 AM (+inic)
242
Re recipes:
I tried a new marinade for quail the other day that was quite good. (It would also work for dark meat chicken or turkey and probably also for lamb.)
1/2 cup packed fresh cilantro leaves (I used the kind that comes in a squeeze tube because I always have that on hand; probably was about 1/4 cup)
2 tablespoons minced peeled fresh gingerroot (I used about 1.5 tablespoons of the ginger that comes in those squeeze tubes)
2 tablespoons soy sauce (I used light soy)
2 teaspoons ground cumin
2 teaspoons ground coriander seeds
1/4 cup oil (I used canola)
Slathered on quail, let sit for 30 minutes (I was impatient), and then broiled.
Be careful broiling, though, because the marinade had a tendency to want to burn.
Really delicious.
I tried a new marinade for quail the other day that was quite good. (It would also work for dark meat chicken or turkey and probably also for lamb.)
1/2 cup packed fresh cilantro leaves (I used the kind that comes in a squeeze tube because I always have that on hand; probably was about 1/4 cup)
2 tablespoons minced peeled fresh gingerroot (I used about 1.5 tablespoons of the ginger that comes in those squeeze tubes)
2 tablespoons soy sauce (I used light soy)
2 teaspoons ground cumin
2 teaspoons ground coriander seeds
1/4 cup oil (I used canola)
Slathered on quail, let sit for 30 minutes (I was impatient), and then broiled.
Be careful broiling, though, because the marinade had a tendency to want to burn.
Really delicious.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:21 AM (5H6zj)
243
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 10:21 AM (+inic)
Would be funny if it weren't what this blog devolved to over the last week or so. Hopefully it's only temporary.
Would be funny if it weren't what this blog devolved to over the last week or so. Hopefully it's only temporary.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 10:24 AM (rX1N2)
244
We could fight about which regional BBQ is best.
Pfft.. that's easy. Kansas City.
Pfft.. that's easy. Kansas City.
Posted by: jewells45 at February 17, 2012 10:24 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: DaveA at February 17, 2012 10:24 AM (qazvp)
246
Just saw this on twitter:
CBS confirms Sheldon Adelson forking over another $10m to @newtgingrich superPAC. Will appear within "days"
Hallelujah!
CBS confirms Sheldon Adelson forking over another $10m to @newtgingrich superPAC. Will appear within "days"
Hallelujah!
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:26 AM (5H6zj)
247
LOL @ Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus.
I have a few quibbles: "Contraception is a public policy issue" actually *does* strike me as code for "we should ban sex". The rest don't, though.
Especially: even a libertarian doesn't equate "Drug use hurts families" with "we should ban sex". I mean, not since the 1920s, when anti-drug campaigns linked reefer-madness with black n' white mixin'. And that was the socons of the day doing it, not the "marihuana" smokers.
I have a few quibbles: "Contraception is a public policy issue" actually *does* strike me as code for "we should ban sex". The rest don't, though.
Especially: even a libertarian doesn't equate "Drug use hurts families" with "we should ban sex". I mean, not since the 1920s, when anti-drug campaigns linked reefer-madness with black n' white mixin'. And that was the socons of the day doing it, not the "marihuana" smokers.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:26 AM (QTHTd)
248
Ynot, thats sounds delish. I have about a pound and a half of a lamb roast leftover from some curry I made. I may give it a try. Wish I could get my hands on some quail.
Posted by: jewells45 at February 17, 2012 10:27 AM (l/N7H)
249
"None of our candidates are perfect. Far from it. But that's not an attainable goal, and we really need to get back on target.
And for God's sakes, let's quit freaking out about every little thing that might theoretically scare off mush middle voters."
This . . . +1,000,000,000,000
And for God's sakes, let's quit freaking out about every little thing that might theoretically scare off mush middle voters."
This . . . +1,000,000,000,000
Posted by: Marybeth at February 17, 2012 10:28 AM (Ks0w4)
250
Wish I could get my hands on some quail.
----
It really was good. Kind of Indian in flavor and especially in aroma.
You can get quail on the internet at many places. We use Fossil Farms. They come six to a package and boned.
We found a cheaper source at a nearby Asian market in their freezer case, so you might check somewhere around there.
----
It really was good. Kind of Indian in flavor and especially in aroma.
You can get quail on the internet at many places. We use Fossil Farms. They come six to a package and boned.
We found a cheaper source at a nearby Asian market in their freezer case, so you might check somewhere around there.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:30 AM (5H6zj)
251
One thing about most of the musings I have seen from 'those' people is their consistency...
Posted by: RioBravo at February 17, 2012 10:10 AM (eEfYn)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yup, they remain consistently bat-shit crazy.
Posted by: RioBravo at February 17, 2012 10:10 AM (eEfYn)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yup, they remain consistently bat-shit crazy.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 10:31 AM (SzAZ7)
252
Keep on pushing that line.The contraceptive mentality has nothing to do with the country's financial mess.Testify.Trying to dodge the consequences of one's actions has nothing to do with .. er ...trying to dodge the consequences of one's actions
So using contraception is irresponsible now? Have fun trying to sell that to the American public.
So using contraception is irresponsible now? Have fun trying to sell that to the American public.
Posted by: Caiwyn at February 17, 2012 10:33 AM (ttktr)
253
Thanks Ynot.. there is an asian store in the river market area. I will check them out.. will be down there tomorrow.
Posted by: jewells45 at February 17, 2012 10:34 AM (l/N7H)
254
Titus, I think the answer to "We need to be aware of the growing Mexican drug war" means "We should ban sex AND pot smokers should get the death penalty."
I'm waiting for another guy to tell me what it's like to wear a diaphragm. Because that's what Obama has them talking about.
I'm waiting for another guy to tell me what it's like to wear a diaphragm. Because that's what Obama has them talking about.
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 10:35 AM (7w+6S)
255
AXELROD WINS WHEN YOU EVEN UTTER THE PHRASE "BAN CONTRACEPTIVES".
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 10:37 AM (7w+6S)
256
I want to hear something other than "we can fix this because I am a smart businessman." --
The business model is not our constitutional model of government, but contrary in nature. (Yuri N. Maltsev)
Our government is constructed of limited powers and limited role. It is not the role of our federal government to be a business, to "make money" or "take profits" or "pay bonuses" nor to determine which company is most favored, and which private enterprises must be raided in order for the monopolizing parasite to have another host. Grant Wall Street the Oval Office again, willfully accept the abuses and corruption of being owned. No way in hell will a Wall Street insulated elitist permit himself to be ostracized by the insiders. That "fix" is already in.
The business model is not our constitutional model of government, but contrary in nature. (Yuri N. Maltsev)
Our government is constructed of limited powers and limited role. It is not the role of our federal government to be a business, to "make money" or "take profits" or "pay bonuses" nor to determine which company is most favored, and which private enterprises must be raided in order for the monopolizing parasite to have another host. Grant Wall Street the Oval Office again, willfully accept the abuses and corruption of being owned. No way in hell will a Wall Street insulated elitist permit himself to be ostracized by the insiders. That "fix" is already in.
Posted by: Israel Thornstein at February 17, 2012 10:38 AM (lpWVn)
257
"$6 Trillion In US Bonds Seized In Zurich, Said To Pose "Severe Threats To International Financial Stability'" http://tinyurl.com/6o9aaan
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 10:39 AM (oZfic)
258
I have a few quibbles: "Contraception is a public policy issue" actually *does* strike me as code for "we should ban sex". The rest don't, though.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:26 AM (QTHTd)
Case in point.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:26 AM (QTHTd)
Case in point.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 10:39 AM (rX1N2)
259
"As Milton Friedman said, "It's nice to elect the right people, but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing."
I think that describes Newt to a T.
I think that describes Newt to a T.
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at February 17, 2012 10:41 AM (digkk)
260
"The Farce-Hole Gets Deeper: Obama's "Robo-Settlement For Votes" Cost To Taxpayers: $40 Billion"http://tinyurl.com/79tgk92
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 10:42 AM (oZfic)
261
Yeah, because Presidents ban stuff everyday. That happens. Sure it does. Just remember when..........................help me out here?
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 10:43 AM (7w+6S)
262
We could fight about which regional BBQ is best.
That is easy. Memphis.
That is easy. Memphis.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 17, 2012 10:43 AM (kaOJx)
263
262 North Carolina
Posted by: dagny at February 17, 2012 10:47 AM (7w+6S)
264
Yes, a call for unity now that the worst of us sat and laughed while they helped the MSM run off our best people. You didn't just sit on your ass and watch, you helped. Now we are down to the dregs, and the asshole loser you wanted, and you want unity. Right. I've got your unity right here.
Posted by: SurferDoc at February 17, 2012 10:47 AM (6H6FZ)
265
So we're agreed, then? Texas!
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 10:48 AM (4q5tP)
266
Kudos, Andy ...for being a rare voice of sanity.
This year "They suck less" probably trumps the Cthulu "Why vote for the lesser evil" slogan.
...sad as that is.
This year "They suck less" probably trumps the Cthulu "Why vote for the lesser evil" slogan.
...sad as that is.
Posted by: davisbr at February 17, 2012 10:48 AM (EuWFS)
267
188 I wouldn't even bring my mom around the barracks. Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (rX1N2) I wouldn't even bring my dog around the barracks.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 09:58 AM (SzAZ7)
Oh, so you were in the Navy?
BA-ZINNNNNG!
188 I wouldn't even bring my mom around the barracks. Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 17, 2012 09:55 AM (rX1N2) I wouldn't even bring my dog around the barracks.
Posted by: Mr Fever Head at February 17, 2012 09:58 AM (SzAZ7)
Oh, so you were in the Navy?
BA-ZINNNNNG!
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 10:49 AM (zmlwq)
268
"Mitt could do one thing, and one thing only to bring me and a whole slew of people from his base and even the middle and center left into his camp screaming and cheering: renounce RomneyCare orforget the "replace" part of "Repeal and Replace"."
WhyMitt hasn't performed his traditional"flip positions" when politically expedientandhas stuckto Romneycare come hell or high water is both mysterious and worrisome.
Why would he think conservatives would disregard Romneycare in the primaries? His nuanced explanation of why Romneycare doesn't = Obamacare just doesn't sell with people.
Whywould the establishment GOP ignore or dodge this? Don't any of them remember the town halls from a couple of years ago? Do they think that anger is gone? The polls certainly don't prove that out. If anything, people despise Obamacare more than ever. The latest grab for our freedom with his contraceptive mandate isn't going to help. Rightly or wrongly, in the public's mind Romneycare = Obamacare.
And why are some conservativestwisting themselves into pretzels trying to defendRomneycare and consequently destroying their credibility (a la Ann Coulter Jason Chavetz)?
Are they all really that tone-deaf, or do they truly and secretly despise us that much?
"Mitt could do one thing, and one thing only to bring me and a whole slew of people from his base and even the middle and center left into his camp screaming and cheering: renounce RomneyCare orforget the "replace" part of "Repeal and Replace"."
WhyMitt hasn't performed his traditional"flip positions" when politically expedientandhas stuckto Romneycare come hell or high water is both mysterious and worrisome.
Why would he think conservatives would disregard Romneycare in the primaries? His nuanced explanation of why Romneycare doesn't = Obamacare just doesn't sell with people.
Whywould the establishment GOP ignore or dodge this? Don't any of them remember the town halls from a couple of years ago? Do they think that anger is gone? The polls certainly don't prove that out. If anything, people despise Obamacare more than ever. The latest grab for our freedom with his contraceptive mandate isn't going to help. Rightly or wrongly, in the public's mind Romneycare = Obamacare.
And why are some conservativestwisting themselves into pretzels trying to defendRomneycare and consequently destroying their credibility (a la Ann Coulter Jason Chavetz)?
Are they all really that tone-deaf, or do they truly and secretly despise us that much?
Posted by: Marybeth at February 17, 2012 10:49 AM (Ks0w4)
269
Burn the Witch: "case in point"
BtW: I would say in all seriousness that when a politician even MENTIONS contraception in the context of "we're worried about this", then most people in the electorate feel their skin crawl. The easy solution is: candidates, don't frighten the horses.
Kinda goes for the GOP's rank and file supporters, too. If candidate X gets a wide following of creationists (Perry), or antisemites (Paul), or Muslims and black nationalists (Obama): then I assume that's their base and I assume that the candidate, if he wins, will be placating that base.
So if a candidate gets a following of prudes who would like a contraceptive purchase to run more or less like a purchase of ephedrine when you've got a bad cold... then I'm going to be watching what that candidate says VERY closely.
BtW: I would say in all seriousness that when a politician even MENTIONS contraception in the context of "we're worried about this", then most people in the electorate feel their skin crawl. The easy solution is: candidates, don't frighten the horses.
Kinda goes for the GOP's rank and file supporters, too. If candidate X gets a wide following of creationists (Perry), or antisemites (Paul), or Muslims and black nationalists (Obama): then I assume that's their base and I assume that the candidate, if he wins, will be placating that base.
So if a candidate gets a following of prudes who would like a contraceptive purchase to run more or less like a purchase of ephedrine when you've got a bad cold... then I'm going to be watching what that candidate says VERY closely.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:50 AM (QTHTd)
270
Carolina all the way. Vinegar and mustard FTW
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 10:50 AM (zmlwq)
Posted by: tasker at February 17, 2012 10:51 AM (r2PLg)
272
Kansas City has the best, the rest are pale imitations.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at February 17, 2012 10:52 AM (6BgmB)
273
Mittens took the Donalds endorsement and maybe even his money but he's too good to be seen with the donald or have the donald speak for him like pawlenty and christie?????http://tinyurl.com/7bbs3o8
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 10:53 AM (oZfic)
274
Thanks, Ace. When things are at their darkest, turn to Milton Friedman. He's helped me keep my sanity many times.
Posted by: Jeffrey at February 17, 2012 10:53 AM (uDsQH)
Posted by: fixerupper at February 17, 2012 10:53 AM (C8hzL)
276
When pondering why certain conservative luminaries would rather play rhetorical Twister rather than admit that Romneycare is a loathsome disaster, it's worthwhile to remember that the mandate and the idea of care exchanges originated in the Heritage Foundation. I'm sure there are more than a few talking heads who live in fear of being reminded of their past support for such schemes.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 10:53 AM (zmlwq)
277
@264
I'm not calling for unity. That comes at the convention. And I agree with you that calls for unity from some quarters ring pretty hollow for the reason you state. But I do think we need to try to get back to substance.
The thing that frustrates me most at this point (and what gets me furiously angry) is that we are not spending any time getting Romney to address the substantive reasons people don't want to vote for him. Santorum lands some real blows on Masscare at a debate and lo and behold debates are something that should be skipped.
Instead of talking about taxes or spending or Iran or whathaveyou, we are hearing about Mrs. Santorum's choice in men twenty (?) years ago or dwelling on a couple of throw away comments Newt made in Florida.
Hell, even this assault on the First Amendment (contraceptive mandate) has been merged with Santorum's personal views on contraception. All that does is help Romney - and Obama - avoid addressing the real problems with the health care stuff.
I'm not calling for unity. That comes at the convention. And I agree with you that calls for unity from some quarters ring pretty hollow for the reason you state. But I do think we need to try to get back to substance.
The thing that frustrates me most at this point (and what gets me furiously angry) is that we are not spending any time getting Romney to address the substantive reasons people don't want to vote for him. Santorum lands some real blows on Masscare at a debate and lo and behold debates are something that should be skipped.
Instead of talking about taxes or spending or Iran or whathaveyou, we are hearing about Mrs. Santorum's choice in men twenty (?) years ago or dwelling on a couple of throw away comments Newt made in Florida.
Hell, even this assault on the First Amendment (contraceptive mandate) has been merged with Santorum's personal views on contraception. All that does is help Romney - and Obama - avoid addressing the real problems with the health care stuff.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:54 AM (5H6zj)
278
pffffft......I think Slim Pickens had Kansas City pegged in Blazing Saddles.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 10:54 AM (zmlwq)
279
274
Thanks, Ace. When things are at their darkest, turn to Milton Friedman. He's helped me keep my sanity many times.
Posted by: Jeffrey at February 17, 2012 10:53 AM (uDsQH)
I thought Ace and Andy were two separate people, what did I miss?
Thanks, Ace. When things are at their darkest, turn to Milton Friedman. He's helped me keep my sanity many times.
Posted by: Jeffrey at February 17, 2012 10:53 AM (uDsQH)
I thought Ace and Andy were two separate people, what did I miss?
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 10:55 AM (oZfic)
280
There is an opportunity for either Santorum or Mitt Romney here to make a big speech about the dangers of Obamacare along the lines of Krauthammer's column today. Each could spin the speech to address some of their own weaknesses. Each could make the case for repealing Obamacare.
For Santorum, hecould address his contraception weakness and say that while he may be personally against contraception,he is not for banning them. Make an attempt to diffuse the issue.
Romney - could say that no one is interested in banninc contraception - don't attack Santorum on this but defend him. Then make the case for repeal, repeal, repeal.
Both could make the case that this isn't necessarily a distraction, it simply highlights the problem of Obamacare. And while Obama wants to make it appear that women are in danger of not being able to get birth control - something that is false - the country's spending is spiraling out of control. We are losing are sight on the big picture.
For Santorum, hecould address his contraception weakness and say that while he may be personally against contraception,he is not for banning them. Make an attempt to diffuse the issue.
Romney - could say that no one is interested in banninc contraception - don't attack Santorum on this but defend him. Then make the case for repeal, repeal, repeal.
Both could make the case that this isn't necessarily a distraction, it simply highlights the problem of Obamacare. And while Obama wants to make it appear that women are in danger of not being able to get birth control - something that is false - the country's spending is spiraling out of control. We are losing are sight on the big picture.
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2012 10:55 AM (gmeXX)
281
Thanks, Ace. When things are at their darkest, turn to Milton Friedman. He's helped me keep my sanity many times.
It's not Ace; it's Andy. Ace thinks the opposite on the issue of not shitting on all the the candidates that aren't your choice.
It's not Ace; it's Andy. Ace thinks the opposite on the issue of not shitting on all the the candidates that aren't your choice.
Posted by: andycanuck at February 17, 2012 10:55 AM (dAJFj)
282
"261
Yeah, because Presidents ban stuff everyday. That happens. Sure it does."
Presidents do, however, make encouraging noises when the Congress bans light fixtures ("Energy!"), cold medicine ("War on drugs!"), detergent ("Clean Water!"), farming ("Endangered Species!"), drilling ("The Gulf!"), refineries ("Clean Air!"), cheap gas ("Ethanol!"), . . .
Yeah, because Presidents ban stuff everyday. That happens. Sure it does."
Presidents do, however, make encouraging noises when the Congress bans light fixtures ("Energy!"), cold medicine ("War on drugs!"), detergent ("Clean Water!"), farming ("Endangered Species!"), drilling ("The Gulf!"), refineries ("Clean Air!"), cheap gas ("Ethanol!"), . . .
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at February 17, 2012 10:57 AM (QTHTd)
283
Of the US regional BBQ I've had, I liked Texas the best. But I have not had Carolina BBQ.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 10:57 AM (5H6zj)
284
I am willing to come out and endorse Newt, Santorum or Romney for Vice President. I think Newt, Santorum or Romney would make fine VPs.
But Presidents? Pfffft. They're fucking 3 year olds splashing in the kiddie pool.
Which is why I'm for a brokered convention. Get a quality candidate on the top of the ticket and put Romney as VP to tap into and use his existing network. It's a win-win-win.
But Presidents? Pfffft. They're fucking 3 year olds splashing in the kiddie pool.
Which is why I'm for a brokered convention. Get a quality candidate on the top of the ticket and put Romney as VP to tap into and use his existing network. It's a win-win-win.
Posted by: Jimmuy at February 17, 2012 10:58 AM (7jkW7)
285
Sigh....I like that Newt is likable and a bit of a wild card as well as has a record of strong conservative action, but well, he tossed that away. So, I guess I'm part of the romney collective now. Sigh...
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 09:41 AM (I49Jm)
When did he toss it away? When he was criticizing Romney for torching him in Florida and was called a giant, bad-tempered whiner (aka "bad Newt")by all the asshole conservative MFM pundits? What he so accurately pointed out wasRomney's strategy to win the election; not on any substative ideas but on destroying his opponents (as he did in 200. But it did make the asshole conservative MFM pundits reluctantly take notice, but only after beating up on Newt for being such a "bad sport" and trumping up his campaign woes.
After calling Newt a sad-sack whiner ad nauseum, now they're all watching Romney with baited breath on any negative fire bombs thrown at Santy. When Romney was throwing everything he could at Newt, I distinctly heard crickets chirping from these assholes. What Newt did was point out Romney's strategy for winning at any cost, which is true. I'm sure that folks will say, "But it's the way he said it," bullshit. Well, how was Newt supposed to say it when none, not one, of these assholes came to his defense during Iowa and Florida? I'd be pretty pissed off, too.
And another thing, if Perry and Newt hadn't gone after Romney's Bain experience (which is Romney's running platform), Romney would still be saying he created 100.00 plus jobs during his reign at Bain. They put an end to that bullshit. Plus, people (us)do see the difference now about destructive capitalism and constructive capitalism, but had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it, no thanks to all the asshole conservative MFM who screamed, screamed, screamed that what Newt and Perry did was anti-conservative.
Newt's done a lot of good, in my opinion, to change the asshole conservative MFM's meme that Romney isTHE ONE. That is why I support Newt. He's affected more change to the asshole conservative MFM than either Santy or Romney. Imagine what he could do if he won the presidency.
And one last thing, Newt will kickPresident Present'sskinny little ass up and down the block in the debates which, I'm willing to bet, will enthuse pretty much all the base and then some. As to his baggage, well, it's been unpacked and rummaged around in again and again, what don't we know?What will Barry's MFM thugs say about Newt? Nothing we haven't heard of already.
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 09:41 AM (I49Jm)
When did he toss it away? When he was criticizing Romney for torching him in Florida and was called a giant, bad-tempered whiner (aka "bad Newt")by all the asshole conservative MFM pundits? What he so accurately pointed out wasRomney's strategy to win the election; not on any substative ideas but on destroying his opponents (as he did in 200
. But it did make the asshole conservative MFM pundits reluctantly take notice, but only after beating up on Newt for being such a "bad sport" and trumping up his campaign woes.
After calling Newt a sad-sack whiner ad nauseum, now they're all watching Romney with baited breath on any negative fire bombs thrown at Santy. When Romney was throwing everything he could at Newt, I distinctly heard crickets chirping from these assholes. What Newt did was point out Romney's strategy for winning at any cost, which is true. I'm sure that folks will say, "But it's the way he said it," bullshit. Well, how was Newt supposed to say it when none, not one, of these assholes came to his defense during Iowa and Florida? I'd be pretty pissed off, too.
And another thing, if Perry and Newt hadn't gone after Romney's Bain experience (which is Romney's running platform), Romney would still be saying he created 100.00 plus jobs during his reign at Bain. They put an end to that bullshit. Plus, people (us)do see the difference now about destructive capitalism and constructive capitalism, but had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it, no thanks to all the asshole conservative MFM who screamed, screamed, screamed that what Newt and Perry did was anti-conservative.
Newt's done a lot of good, in my opinion, to change the asshole conservative MFM's meme that Romney isTHE ONE. That is why I support Newt. He's affected more change to the asshole conservative MFM than either Santy or Romney. Imagine what he could do if he won the presidency.
And one last thing, Newt will kickPresident Present'sskinny little ass up and down the block in the debates which, I'm willing to bet, will enthuse pretty much all the base and then some. As to his baggage, well, it's been unpacked and rummaged around in again and again, what don't we know?What will Barry's MFM thugs say about Newt? Nothing we haven't heard of already.
Posted by: JoAnne in the tank for Newt at February 17, 2012 10:58 AM (8DdAv)
286
200 Kowalski. 2008.
Posted by: JoAnne in the tank for Newt at February 17, 2012 11:00 AM (8DdAv)
287
"It doesn’t make sense for Romney to do anything to alienate Trump.
The New York Daily News reported this week that Trump is still
considering running for president on the Americans Elect presidential ticket.
His adviser suggests, however, that something like that would only happen if Romney lost the Republican nomination.
“If Mitt Romney does not become the nominee,” he said, “Mr. Trump will 100 percent enter this race.”
"It doesn’t make sense for Romney to do anything to alienate Trump.
The New York Daily News reported this week that Trump is still
considering running for president on the Americans Elect presidential ticket.
His adviser suggests, however, that something like that would only happen if Romney lost the Republican nomination.
“If Mitt Romney does not become the nominee,” he said, “Mr. Trump will 100 percent enter this race.”
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 11:00 AM (oZfic)
288
277 If our people are too stupid to do as you say (and I agree they should and more) why would we heed their calls to do better than they can or will? A pox on the lot of them. Maybe they will learn when they are fighting with dogs over scraps in alley while bankers and politicians swing from lampposts. I don't care. Any three people here, including the ones I don't agree with much, know more than our elite "betters". To Hell with the lot of them.
Posted by: SurferDoc at February 17, 2012 11:01 AM (6H6FZ)
289
Memphis BBQ please! Mmmmmm pork sandwich with cole slaw.
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 17, 2012 11:02 AM (OmL1S)
290
I didn't realize there was a BBQ debate going on - should read the entire thread I guess. Texas BBQ hands down. Going for some today. I realize you can't win this kind of argument, but I'll take beef BBQ over pulled pork any day of the week.
Is it lunch time yet?
Is it lunch time yet?
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2012 11:05 AM (gmeXX)
291
Man, this BBQ topic is killing me. It's only 9:06 here.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 11:06 AM (5H6zj)
292
246 Just saw this on twitter:
CBS confirms Sheldon Adelson forking over another $10m to @newtgingrich superPAC. Will appear within "days"
----------------------------------------------------------
This isn't necessarily good news. I have read rumors that Adelson is now in cahoots with some of the Romney people--the idea is for "Newt's" SuperPAC to go very negative on Santorum, which should hurt both Santorum and Newt, while Mittens keeps his pretty hands clean. (How Romney's people can legally coordinate with someone SuperPAC is a separate question.) Romney's campaign had been openly threatening Adelson with a boycott by Romney's supporters--from everything I've read, Adelson caved in a hurry.
I do hope that I'm wrong.
CBS confirms Sheldon Adelson forking over another $10m to @newtgingrich superPAC. Will appear within "days"
----------------------------------------------------------
This isn't necessarily good news. I have read rumors that Adelson is now in cahoots with some of the Romney people--the idea is for "Newt's" SuperPAC to go very negative on Santorum, which should hurt both Santorum and Newt, while Mittens keeps his pretty hands clean. (How Romney's people can legally coordinate with someone SuperPAC is a separate question.) Romney's campaign had been openly threatening Adelson with a boycott by Romney's supporters--from everything I've read, Adelson caved in a hurry.
I do hope that I'm wrong.
Posted by: Burke at February 17, 2012 11:06 AM (9N3G1)
293
I really don't know what to think of Newt. He has some great ideas and some ghastly ideas. He's done some brilliant things and some idiotic things. Ultimately, I think he's just not a very good candidate. Far too many people remember him as the caricature he was portrayed to be in the '90s budget battles, like that infamous Time cover of him as Ebeneazer Scrooge.
Plus, I still can't get over both his million dollar payout from Freddie and Fannie as well as his bullshit excuses for it. Weak sauce.
I don't know a ton about Jindal, but apparently he's been massively successful in Louisiana, pulling huge approval numbers in a traditionally Dem state. Wish he'd been in the race.
Plus, I still can't get over both his million dollar payout from Freddie and Fannie as well as his bullshit excuses for it. Weak sauce.
I don't know a ton about Jindal, but apparently he's been massively successful in Louisiana, pulling huge approval numbers in a traditionally Dem state. Wish he'd been in the race.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 11:07 AM (zmlwq)
294
I'll take beef BBQ over pulled pork any day of the week.
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2012 11:05 AM (gmeXX)
Seriously, people have been deported for lesser crimes. Beef is not barbeque.
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2012 11:05 AM (gmeXX)
Seriously, people have been deported for lesser crimes. Beef is not barbeque.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 11:08 AM (zmlwq)
295
Beef is barbeque, it is just inferior barbeque.
Posted by: Gulfkraken at February 17, 2012 11:09 AM (WBfjO)
296
The puka shell choker necklace really completes the look, doesn't it?
"I am a Starseed, incarnate of the Indigo Ray channel for the
Galactic Federation and my Star Family from the Ashtar Command, an 11th
dimensional Osequeq collective from the Star System Tauri C;
Just because you're tripping balls doesn't mean your brain stops trying to figure it all out.
"I am a Starseed, incarnate of the Indigo Ray channel for the
Galactic Federation and my Star Family from the Ashtar Command, an 11th
dimensional Osequeq collective from the Star System Tauri C;
Just because you're tripping balls doesn't mean your brain stops trying to figure it all out.
Posted by: Timothy Leary at February 17, 2012 11:10 AM (qazvp)
297
@294, 295 - Come to Texas and say that. Sloppy joe's are not BBQ.
Seriously, is it lunch time?
Seriously, is it lunch time?
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2012 11:14 AM (gmeXX)
298
Is MA, Sloppy Joes are called Loose Meat sandwhiches. Could Not Stop Giggling At The Lunch Counter.
Posted by: Count de Monet at February 17, 2012 11:16 AM (4q5tP)
299
This isn't necessarily good news. I have read rumors that Adelson is now in cahoots with some of the Romney people--the idea is for "Newt's" SuperPAC to go very negative on Santorum, which should hurt both Santorum and Newt, while Mittens keeps his pretty hands clean.
---
Yeah, I read the rumor about Romney. I don't believe it.
Newt indicated a few days ago he was re-committing to campaigning positively and gave a speech in which he did just that. He seems to have gotten the message from the voters that that's what they want. Whether or not it's too late remains to be seen, but assuming Adelson is trying to help Newt rather than hurt him I think that $10M can come in handy.
Those looking to learn more about Newt might check out this interview:
http://tinyurl.com/85t63av
Newt is the only one of the guys left who inspires me. That, coupled with his tax plan and experience/success in DC, is why I am sticking with him over the others.
---
Yeah, I read the rumor about Romney. I don't believe it.
Newt indicated a few days ago he was re-committing to campaigning positively and gave a speech in which he did just that. He seems to have gotten the message from the voters that that's what they want. Whether or not it's too late remains to be seen, but assuming Adelson is trying to help Newt rather than hurt him I think that $10M can come in handy.
Those looking to learn more about Newt might check out this interview:
http://tinyurl.com/85t63av
Newt is the only one of the guys left who inspires me. That, coupled with his tax plan and experience/success in DC, is why I am sticking with him over the others.
Posted by: Y-not bright eyed and bushy tailed at February 17, 2012 11:20 AM (5H6zj)
300
I'd come to Texas, but it has the drawback that it's full of Texans. And the goddamn Dallas Cowboys, too.
Pulled pork is not a sloppy joe for the simple fact that, unlike what they call BBQ in Texas, it's not drowning in sickly-sweet sauce. The flavor comes from the mop, and you just need a little drizzle of sauce on the sandwich.
Pulled pork is not a sloppy joe for the simple fact that, unlike what they call BBQ in Texas, it's not drowning in sickly-sweet sauce. The flavor comes from the mop, and you just need a little drizzle of sauce on the sandwich.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 11:22 AM (zmlwq)
301
Well I can't argue for the Cowboys. Dallas has shitty BBQ anyway. But I'll take the full of Texans part. I don't mind pulled pork - just think it to be inferior. And every Texan would agree.
Posted by: SH at February 17, 2012 11:30 AM (gmeXX)
302
"135 We are, indeed, seriously fucked. 99% of the elected officials in this country are willfully blind to what we're facing. And of the presidential candidates, the only one who sees the problem clearly also happens to be a demented old man who solicits Nazi donations, believes strongly in relying on the kindness of strangers as the basis for a sound foreign policy and entertains any number of crackpot conspiracy theories. It's all extremely depressing.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (zmlwq) "
Oh, it's worse than you think. 90% of me is still walking around wondering 'why are they so blind?!?!' instead of realizing - duh - that their 'vision' is plenty good, they're just fucking criminals. But yah, I know what you mean.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 09:39 AM (zmlwq) "
Oh, it's worse than you think. 90% of me is still walking around wondering 'why are they so blind?!?!' instead of realizing - duh - that their 'vision' is plenty good, they're just fucking criminals. But yah, I know what you mean.
Posted by: JQ Public at February 17, 2012 11:37 AM (NBj0d)
303
We're going to elect the wrong person. We always were - they're politicians, after all. Let's devote more energy to nudging them all in the right direction and less to tearing them down over stupid stuff.
I think the nudging part is after the election.
We're going to elect the wrong person. We always were - they're politicians, after all. Let's devote more energy to nudging them all in the right direction and less to tearing them down over stupid stuff.
I think the nudging part is after the election.
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at February 17, 2012 11:41 AM (sP77w)
304
If your post was a man I'd propose to it on Valentine's Day. You said what needed to be said - I hope enough people hear you.
Posted by: wankette at February 17, 2012 12:02 PM (CrYip)
305
Kansas City BBQ is the only kind there is.
Posted by: wankette at February 17, 2012 12:09 PM (CrYip)
306
"What in the Wide World of Sports is a-going on here? I hired you people to cook upa little Texas BBQ, not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots!"
Posted by: Taggart at February 17, 2012 12:26 PM (4q5tP)
307
***Posted by: JoAnne in the tank for Newt at February 17, 2012 10:58 AM (8DdAv)***
I went from Perry to Newt so I'm not one of those guys who thought Newt is unelectable at all.
Newt, IMO, went way off track with his attacks from the left. There were ways to go after Romney from the right. Newt chose to go Occutard - I believe this is some of that 7-dimensional chess thinking which has all of our candidates doing the stupid dance.
Secondly, his last debate appearance was godawful.
why?
Romney (his PAC) was able to get him way off track and lost among niggling details.
It revealed a thin-skin and lack of discipline that I'd thought he'd overcome and hadn't seen before. There's Obama's and the MSMs blueprint for any debate.
Now, if on the Feb 22 debate Newt comes roaring back as happy, wise, humorous grandpa Newt cock-slapping his opponents with the truth and a smile on his face, count me back on the Newt train.
I went from Perry to Newt so I'm not one of those guys who thought Newt is unelectable at all.
Newt, IMO, went way off track with his attacks from the left. There were ways to go after Romney from the right. Newt chose to go Occutard - I believe this is some of that 7-dimensional chess thinking which has all of our candidates doing the stupid dance.
Secondly, his last debate appearance was godawful.
why?
Romney (his PAC) was able to get him way off track and lost among niggling details.
It revealed a thin-skin and lack of discipline that I'd thought he'd overcome and hadn't seen before. There's Obama's and the MSMs blueprint for any debate.
Now, if on the Feb 22 debate Newt comes roaring back as happy, wise, humorous grandpa Newt cock-slapping his opponents with the truth and a smile on his face, count me back on the Newt train.
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 12:38 PM (XBdI0)
308
If you read the lefties, they can't and don't say "Vote of BHO because he's doing such an AWESOME JOB!"
They say, "Vote for BHO because then we get leftist judges appointed."
So my only question for a GOP candidate is "What kind of judges will you appoint. Will you appoint judges that are as far to the right as Obama has nominated those on the far left?"
Santorum, Romney, Palin, IDGAC. Just answer that Q for me.
They say, "Vote for BHO because then we get leftist judges appointed."
So my only question for a GOP candidate is "What kind of judges will you appoint. Will you appoint judges that are as far to the right as Obama has nominated those on the far left?"
Santorum, Romney, Palin, IDGAC. Just answer that Q for me.
Posted by: Bang Out Of Order at February 17, 2012 12:58 PM (1H47k)
309
I don't know a ton about Jindal, but apparently he's
been massively successful in Louisiana, pulling huge approval numbers
in a traditionally Dem state. Wish he'd been in the race.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 11:07 AM (zmlwq)His CPAC speech was amazing....I wondered where that guy was when he did the response speech. If you put the two speeches ear to ear and let people listen and not see they'd swear the guy who made the CPAC speech is not the guy who made that awful Republican response speech. Yet from the contents of both, yes I absolutely went back to listen, were spot on as the brits would say.
been massively successful in Louisiana, pulling huge approval numbers
in a traditionally Dem state. Wish he'd been in the race.
Posted by: radar at February 17, 2012 11:07 AM (zmlwq)His CPAC speech was amazing....I wondered where that guy was when he did the response speech. If you put the two speeches ear to ear and let people listen and not see they'd swear the guy who made the CPAC speech is not the guy who made that awful Republican response speech. Yet from the contents of both, yes I absolutely went back to listen, were spot on as the brits would say.
Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 17, 2012 12:59 PM (oZfic)
310
Look little timmy and his master are laughing thier asses off right now they could really care less why? Because we have almost reached the LIBTARDS magic number what number you ask? Why the fact that 47% of the voters in this country vote for a living! Once we hit the 50% tiping point it will be the end of any limits on Government spending at that point we will become a third world country in 20 years or less. Say hello to your future America you are greece just bigger!
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 17, 2012 01:23 PM (8NiWI)
311
"And for God's sakes, let's quit freaking out about every little thing that might theoretically scare off mush middle voters."
Yeah right. Unless someone mentions Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. Or Sarah Palin.
Yeah right. Unless someone mentions Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. Or Sarah Palin.
Posted by: YFS at February 17, 2012 01:27 PM (tFXnz)
312
This poat is so great I think I'm pregnant.
Posted by: Pupster at February 17, 2012 01:35 PM (6tVbw)
313
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 12:38 PM (XBdI0)
Well, I didn't think Newt's position on Bain was leftist at all. That was a claim the conservative pundits used against him and Perry, but I disagreed at the time and I disagree now. So I guess it's the round hole/square peg in me that refused to go along with all their screetching. I, too, was a Perrynista, and I trusted his instincts. After all, isn't Mitt's executive experience and job creation record what he's running on? Why not take a look at that? I am not offended by the whole venture capitalist thing, but fixing companies (as Romney focused on)and cannabilizing companies (which Romney did not focus on)are two different things,and I think voters deserve to know the difference and decide for themselves. It definitely killed the "I created 100,00 jobs" meme created by Romney.
And the pre-Florida debate? Yeah, that was god-awful. But, it's the only time I've seen Newt flounder. Hey, he's only human. Romney was going full borekill (remember, it's just not about beating Gringrich anymore, it's about destroying him) mode and nobody but nobody in the conservative MFM said anything about it. Nothing. It wasn't until the Drudge-hate-Newt-smear-fest slapped them all in the face and they were forced to acknowledge Mitt's behavior. If I was Newt I'd be pretty pissed off that people I thought of as my friends and who I thought werefair and balanced (ahem)neversaid a damn word. Not a fucking word. And even after that, what was conservative rationalization said over and over?Those kinds of tactics will only make the candidates stronger because the Chicago machine will say and do much worse.
Who is benefitting from all this? That jerk supremeo, Rick Santorum. Who attacked Perry relentlessly in the debates? Rick Santorum. Who attacked other candidates while Newt stayed positive? Rick Santorum. So now Santorum isn't going to get the full butt-ream that he deserves because conservatives asked Romney not to and everybody's watching? Color me pissed off.
I guess it just burns me up that the two biggest cons are at the front of the pack and the only one who hasn't had to lie or distort his own record to appeal to voters, who has publicly acknowledged his very personal mistakes, who has faced unrelenting criticism and examination from his own party, who has tried to run a very positive compaign with significant ideasis running a distant third.
Sick of this meme: "It revealed a thin-skin and lack of discipline that I'd thought he'd overcome," repetition ofasshole conservative MFMbullshit. Oh yeah, and the only person I'dsay is the poster boy ofthin-skinnedness is O'Barky.Nobody compares to him.Nobody.
Well, I didn't think Newt's position on Bain was leftist at all. That was a claim the conservative pundits used against him and Perry, but I disagreed at the time and I disagree now. So I guess it's the round hole/square peg in me that refused to go along with all their screetching. I, too, was a Perrynista, and I trusted his instincts. After all, isn't Mitt's executive experience and job creation record what he's running on? Why not take a look at that? I am not offended by the whole venture capitalist thing, but fixing companies (as Romney focused on)and cannabilizing companies (which Romney did not focus on)are two different things,and I think voters deserve to know the difference and decide for themselves. It definitely killed the "I created 100,00 jobs" meme created by Romney.
And the pre-Florida debate? Yeah, that was god-awful. But, it's the only time I've seen Newt flounder. Hey, he's only human. Romney was going full borekill (remember, it's just not about beating Gringrich anymore, it's about destroying him) mode and nobody but nobody in the conservative MFM said anything about it. Nothing. It wasn't until the Drudge-hate-Newt-smear-fest slapped them all in the face and they were forced to acknowledge Mitt's behavior. If I was Newt I'd be pretty pissed off that people I thought of as my friends and who I thought werefair and balanced (ahem)neversaid a damn word. Not a fucking word. And even after that, what was conservative rationalization said over and over?Those kinds of tactics will only make the candidates stronger because the Chicago machine will say and do much worse.
Who is benefitting from all this? That jerk supremeo, Rick Santorum. Who attacked Perry relentlessly in the debates? Rick Santorum. Who attacked other candidates while Newt stayed positive? Rick Santorum. So now Santorum isn't going to get the full butt-ream that he deserves because conservatives asked Romney not to and everybody's watching? Color me pissed off.
I guess it just burns me up that the two biggest cons are at the front of the pack and the only one who hasn't had to lie or distort his own record to appeal to voters, who has publicly acknowledged his very personal mistakes, who has faced unrelenting criticism and examination from his own party, who has tried to run a very positive compaign with significant ideasis running a distant third.
Sick of this meme: "It revealed a thin-skin and lack of discipline that I'd thought he'd overcome," repetition ofasshole conservative MFMbullshit. Oh yeah, and the only person I'dsay is the poster boy ofthin-skinnedness is O'Barky.Nobody compares to him.Nobody.
Posted by: JoAnne in the tank for Newt at February 17, 2012 01:48 PM (8DdAv)
314
92
Sorry, but in addition to the simple fact that he's a leftist, I also don't find his executive experience very impressive.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:12 AM (+inic)
***
How do you feel about Obama's executive experience? Impressed with that, are you? Even three years in?
Did you even read the article? The choice is not Obama versus perfection. It is not Obama versus Reagan's ghost. It is not Obama versus some wet dream candidate being coronated at the convention.
It is Obama versus whoever of Romney, Gingrich or Santorum is mostly likely to win.
Time to start focusing.
Sorry, but in addition to the simple fact that he's a leftist, I also don't find his executive experience very impressive.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 17, 2012 09:12 AM (+inic)
***
How do you feel about Obama's executive experience? Impressed with that, are you? Even three years in?
Did you even read the article? The choice is not Obama versus perfection. It is not Obama versus Reagan's ghost. It is not Obama versus some wet dream candidate being coronated at the convention.
It is Obama versus whoever of Romney, Gingrich or Santorum is mostly likely to win.
Time to start focusing.
Posted by: Pat Cohan at February 17, 2012 02:23 PM (u3N3z)
315
Whoah, take a breath.
You don't have to convince me of Newt's strong points.
I, too, don't like the negative campaign that Romney is running, scorching out everybody who would be good till we're left with the most stubborn, least likeable guy as his main challenge.
But, the fact is that Newt screwed himself in that debate. That was a very poor performance *because* they went after him in a way that got him niggling over minor details and explanations- That is a weakness.
If you're explaining, you're losing.
Two, they got him off his game because they got him pissed off.
How many bald-faced lies do you think Obozo's cronies are going to tell about him?
After seeing how they treated Palin, how many times do you think they're going to call his wife a whore on TV?
That concerned me, not because I fell for the hype, but because that was a tiny sample of what the Dims are going to run on our candidate once the race gets going.
Newt let me down. I believed that he was smarter than that. If he's learned his lesson and ready to run a smart campaign, as I said I'm ready to get back on board...
But if not, if it comes down, as it's appearing to right now, Santorum and Romney- I'll go for Romney.
Not because I believe he's an awesome conservative or an awesome candidate or because I think he'll do a great job- because I don't believe any of that, I'll vote for him and support him because between Santorum and Romney I believe Romney has a better shot with the low information voter to beat the SCOAMT.
You don't have to convince me of Newt's strong points.
I, too, don't like the negative campaign that Romney is running, scorching out everybody who would be good till we're left with the most stubborn, least likeable guy as his main challenge.
But, the fact is that Newt screwed himself in that debate. That was a very poor performance *because* they went after him in a way that got him niggling over minor details and explanations- That is a weakness.
If you're explaining, you're losing.
Two, they got him off his game because they got him pissed off.
How many bald-faced lies do you think Obozo's cronies are going to tell about him?
After seeing how they treated Palin, how many times do you think they're going to call his wife a whore on TV?
That concerned me, not because I fell for the hype, but because that was a tiny sample of what the Dims are going to run on our candidate once the race gets going.
Newt let me down. I believed that he was smarter than that. If he's learned his lesson and ready to run a smart campaign, as I said I'm ready to get back on board...
But if not, if it comes down, as it's appearing to right now, Santorum and Romney- I'll go for Romney.
Not because I believe he's an awesome conservative or an awesome candidate or because I think he'll do a great job- because I don't believe any of that, I'll vote for him and support him because between Santorum and Romney I believe Romney has a better shot with the low information voter to beat the SCOAMT.
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 02:24 PM (XBdI0)
316
Sorry the above relates to:
Posted by: JoAnne in the tank for Newt at February 17, 2012 01:48 PM (8DdAv)
Posted by: JoAnne in the tank for Newt at February 17, 2012 01:48 PM (8DdAv)
Posted by: naturalfake at February 17, 2012 02:26 PM (XBdI0)
317
Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: steevy at February 17, 2012 03:40 PM (7W3wI)
318
Look little timmy and his master are laughing thier asses off right now they could really care less why? Because we have almost reached the LIBTARDS magic number what number you ask? Why the fact that 47% of the voters in this country vote for a living! Once we hit the 50% tiping point it will be the end of any limits on Government spending at that point we will become a third world country in 20 years or less. Say hello to your future America you are greece just bigger!
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 17, 2012 01:23 PM (8NiWI)
Just as in Greece, the taxpaying class will begin to think up clever ways to hide their income. That is ultimately the only way to battle back against a system as corrupt and unfair asours. Greece is a good example of how you run out of other people's money.
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 17, 2012 01:23 PM (8NiWI)
Just as in Greece, the taxpaying class will begin to think up clever ways to hide their income. That is ultimately the only way to battle back against a system as corrupt and unfair asours. Greece is a good example of how you run out of other people's money.
Posted by: Mo at February 17, 2012 06:26 PM (rZZA3)
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0585 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0294 seconds, 327 records returned.
Page size 213 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat