Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#1 Dec 11 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Since Cain is obsolete and I need a place to drop tidbits about the remaining candidates as they happen.

Starting it off, lolRomney for last night's (attempted) $10,000 bet with Rick Perry.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Dec 11 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Not many reasonable men on this one.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#3 Dec 11 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
For a Republican, you know you fucked up when Fox News rags on you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Dec 11 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
There was also that clip that the Daily Show had with Pat Robertson telling the candidates to dial it back.
____________________________
.
#5 Dec 11 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
There was also that clip that the Daily Show had with Pat Robertson telling the candidates to dial it back.


That is hilariously bad. Talk about pulling out a gun while quail hunting and shooting your friend in the face yourself in the foot.

Oh also in before Gbaji's long winded response defending him.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#6 Dec 11 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Romney has to do far more than demonstrate that he's unlike the average voter to lose this. It's more fun to watch if there's some sort of horse-race element, but there isn't. No one else has any chance in **** in the general election, the GOP is nothing if not easily compliant, it's the entire philosophy that allows them to be a viable party. GOP voters simply do what they're told. They'll be told to vote for Romney, and they will. There's literally never been a GOP candidate in my lifetime who wasn't the establishment choice. It's the "wait until it's your turn" party.

The Democratic primary can be interesting. Democrats weakness is they aren't as easily lead and can come up with a Dukakis or a Mondale or an Obamma once in a while. The GOP primary is just boring. You nearly allays know the winner by December of the year before the election.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#7 Dec 11 2011 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
For a Republican, you know you fucked up when Fox News rags on you.


Well, it can be hard to defend every Republican as they attempt to rip each other to shreds. Gbaji's proof enough.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#8 Dec 11 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/true-romney-once-drove-canada-family-dog-roof-173122579.html

sticking with Romney, he also hates animals.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#9 Dec 11 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Gingrich would be a more effective president I believe, but I also think he's got too much baggage to make it in the top spot. I see him easily getting the VP nod at this point though. Romny has the Morman issue to contend with, and that alone I think makes him completely unelectable.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#10 Dec 11 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
I would prefer to see ANYTHING else than Gingrich in any kind of seat of power. The last thing we need is that racist, sexist f*** being at the forefront of American politics.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#11 Dec 11 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Gingrich would be a more effective president I believe, but I also think he's got too much baggage to make it in the top spot. I see him easily getting the VP nod at this point though. Romny has the Morman issue to contend with, and that alone I think makes him completely unelectable.


The guy who called the Palestinian people an invented people, because it was part of the ottomon empire until the early 20th century. While speaking on an Jewish television network a nation of people who's home land was made 50 years after the fall of Ottomon Empire, in territory that also was former Ottomon land.

Too bad Huckabee isn't running.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#12 Dec 11 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
I didn' say he would be a good one, I said he would be more effective than Romney, who would be an unmitigated disaster.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#13 Dec 11 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
I find it difficult to believe he's not actually an elaborate prank. He's a tool, and a pathetic one at that.

Some gems.

IDK which is better. That we should revoke child labor laws so intercity children can replace janitors in their schools, or that waterboarding isn't torture because we do it to pilots in the air force.

Actually, my favorite is:

Quote:
I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age, they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.


Because all radical Islamists are secular atheists, and neither of those two identities are compatible with being an American!
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Dec 11 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I didn' say he would be a good one, I said he would be more effective than Romney, who would be an unmitigated disaster.


I can't even begin to agree with you here.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#15 Dec 11 2011 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
My main objections to Mitt are some of his plans for space, road infrastructure, and military spending. I'll also be the first to admit that gingrich has numerous horible flaws. Between the two of them though, gingrich would be closer to my viewpoint on at least a few of the key issues I care about, and if nothing else, he has been around and at the highest levels of power to know where all the bodies are buried. Mitt has less baggage, but less experiance and has some ideeas for various sections of the government that I care about that are not in line with my particular political views.

Here's a decent writeup of the pros and cons of Mitt and Newt that is relitivly balanced for the most part:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html

By Charles Krauthammer

It’s Iowa minus 32 days, and barring yet another resurrection (or event of similar improbability), it’s Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich. In a match race, here’s the scorecard:

Romney has managed to weather the debates unscathed. However, the brittleness he showed when confronted with the kind of informed follow-up questions that Bret Baier tossed his way Tuesday on Fox’s “Special Report” — the kind of scrutiny one doesn’t get in multiplayer debates — suggests that Romney may become increasingly vulnerable as the field narrows.

Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces — and likely the final one. Gingrich’s obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags and mind changes even more extensive than Romney’s — on climate change, the health-care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.

The list is long. But what distinguishes Gingrich from Romney — and mitigates these heresies in the eyes of conservatives — is that he authored a historic conservative triumph: the 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control.

Which means that Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core — while Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from . . . nothing. Romney has no signature achievement, legislation or manifesto that identifies him as a core conservative.

So what is he? A center-right, classic Northeastern Republican who, over time, has adopted a specific, quite bold, thoroughly conservative platform. His entitlement reform, for example, is more courageous than that of any candidate, including Barack Obama. Nevertheless, the party base, ostentatiously pursuing serial suitors-of-the-month, considers him ideologically unreliable. Hence the current ardor for Gingrich.

Gingrich has his own vulnerabilities. The first is often overlooked because it is characterological rather than ideological: his own unreliability. Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.

Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years. It is inexplicable.”

This will not do. He was obviously thinking something. What was it? Thinking of himself as a grand world-historical figure, attuned to the latest intellectual trend (preferably one with a tinge of futurism and science, like global warming), demonstrating his own incomparable depth and farsightedness. Made even more profound and fundamental — his favorite adjectives — if done in collaboration with a Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy or even Al Sharpton, offering yet more evidence of transcendent, trans-partisan uniqueness.

Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience — the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.

The second, more obvious, Gingrich vulnerability is electability. Given his considerable service to the movement, many conservatives seem quite prepared to overlook his baggage, ideological and otherwise. This is understandable. But the independents and disaffected Democrats upon whom the general election will hinge will not be so forgiving.

They will find it harder to overlook the fact that the man who denounces Freddie Mac to the point of suggesting that those in Congress who aided and abetted it be imprisoned, took $30,000 a month from that very same parasitic federal creation. Nor will independents be so willing to believe that more than $1.5 million was paid for Gingrich’s advice as “a historian” rather than for services as an influence peddler.

Obama’s approval rating among independents is a catastrophically low 30 percent. This is a constituency disappointed in Obama but also deeply offended by the corrupt culture of the Washington insider — a distaste in no way attenuated by fond memories of the 1994 Contract with America

My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?

____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#16 Dec 11 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
I find it quite funny that having decided that you Americans had yourselves made a mistake in electing a guy unsuited to run your country, you're all ready to do it again just to get him out.

I mean, I'm not an expert or anything but even I can see that Obama winning the coming election is the lesser of all evils here.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#17 Dec 11 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Gingrich would be a more effective president I believe, but I also think he's got too much baggage to make it in the top spot. I see him easily getting the VP nod at this point though. Romny has the Morman issue to contend with, and that alone I think makes him completely unelectable.
His Republican issue is a bigger turn off for me than his Mormon issue.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#18 Dec 11 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The Democratic primary can be interesting. Democrats weakness is they aren't as easily lead and can come up with a Dukakis or a Mondale or an Obamma once in a while. The GOP primary is just boring. You nearly allays know the winner by December of the year before the election.

Would Clinton have to give up her post to run again? Would she, period?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#19 Dec 11 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I find it quite funny that having decided that you Americans had yourselves made a mistake in electing a guy unsuited to run your country, you're all ready to do it again just to get him out.

I mean, I'm not an expert or anything but even I can see that Obama winning the coming election is the lesser of all evils here.

There will never be an opportunity to vote for anyone else. We will be presented with Obama and whatever dreg the Republicans come up with, and those will be the choices. Americans don't know or even seem to care what to do about it.
#20 Dec 11 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
They shouldn't have to do anything about. The **** off for the American Govt is the Congressional gridlock games that the conservatives have been playing for the last half decade.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#21 Dec 11 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
To be fair to Mitt, which of the Republican candidates aren't millionaires? How often is it these days that there is a viable candidate from any party that isn't a millionaire? It's really a sad system we've set ourselves up with.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#22 Dec 11 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
What really, REALLY disturbs me is our laws pertaining to corporate pr stock holdings while in positions of power.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#23 Dec 11 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
To be fair to Mitt, which of the Republican candidates aren't millionaires? How often is it these days that there is a viable candidate from any party that isn't a millionaire? It's really a sad system we've set ourselves up with.

Fair or not, candidates have to tread a line between having the money and still being relatable to those without millions of dollars. After someone says they feel your working class pain, you don't want to hear about them forgetting how many houses they own or their million dollar credit line at Tiffany's or about them casually making $10,000 bets.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Dec 11 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:


rdmcandie wrote:


More importantly, why are you two using the same avatar? it's a bit confusing.


Edited, Dec 11th 2011 11:09pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#25 Dec 11 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's one of the stock avatars available to proles who don't have premium.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Dec 11 2011 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
None of them can actually relate. On either side, that's part of the problem. Our election system is currently only allows people with money enough to not work while campaigning to even have a chance. I don't know the solution, but to me, it's a problem.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#27 Dec 11 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
None of them can actually relate. On either side, that's part of the problem. Our election system is currently only allows people with money enough to not work while campaigning to even have a chance. I don't know the solution, but to me, it's a problem.


I don't know the current state of it, but NJ was seriously considering a system that would cap campaign funds according to donations, possibly working in state financing relative to private donations as well, and require a bottom-up campaign strategy in which candidates would have to start at a local level and work up from there.

Or something like that. I honestly can't remember the specifics right now, and I'm too busy to look into it right now. But the idea was to open up campaigns to lower classes by evening the playing field. There was some kind of system that limited funds relative to donations or something, and required donations to be within the district.

...

I think I'm making this more confusing, and I'm ultimately going to fail at explaining it anyway, since I don't really understand how it worked in the first place. I just know that the concept was that they had to start small and there was a proposed system in place to keep the playing field sorta equal. I remember thinking it sounded a little like a tournament system (but not anywhere near as simplistic).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#28 Dec 11 2011 at 11:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
Debalic wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:


rdmcandie wrote:


More importantly, why are you two using the same avatar? it's a bit confusing.


Edited, Dec 11th 2011 11:09pm by Debalic


guess people want to be just like me. I dunno.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#29 Dec 12 2011 at 2:03 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,574 posts
It's fairly disheartening to see people on either side making an issue of the comment. It shows a concern more with a thin veneer of a pleb than anything that lies underneath. It's ok for him to be a millionaire who can't relate to working class citizens, but it's not ok for him to talk about it.
#30 Dec 12 2011 at 2:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,772 posts
Allegory wrote:
It's fairly disheartening to see people on either side making an issue of the comment. It shows a concern more with a thin veneer of a pleb than anything that lies underneath. It's ok for him to be a millionaire who can't relate to working class citizens, but it's not ok for him to talk about it.


During the Virginia ratifying Convention in 1788, Edmund Randolph (one of our Secretary of States) referred the people as a "herd." Patrick Henry, a leading anti-federalist due to their elitism, called him on it.

Alexander Hamilton denied allegations that the Federalist Party were attempting to create a new aristocracy by arguing that aristocracy required a belief in an independent power that elevated you above other men. Yet when addressing criticisms of a general election system as opposed to district elections, they alleged that only the greatest of men deserved a seat in government, and that district elections would only keep better men out (never mind that it would mean stripping proper representation from that district).

In 1794, the Federalist Party signed the Jay Treaty with Britain (which was WILDLY unpopular, since they were at war with revolutionary France at the time), primarily so that they could secure trade with Britain. AMAZINGLY, this trade agreement benefited the gentry, but the vast majority of Americans would have profited more from an agreement with France, who were seeking more mundane goods like wheat.

The Federalist Party passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 in an attempt to keep Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, from speaking out against the government by publishing "scandalous" or "malicious" writings. AMAZINGLY, this just happened to be an election year, and the federal gov't had just levied a much hated tax on the people to fund a naval war with France, who was seizing trade ships bound for Britain. Why? Because the Federalist US gov't had stopped repaying our war debt to them on the grounds that we owed it to the crown, not the republic. They were also, unsurprisingly, **** that although they helped us during our war with Britain, we sided Britain during theirs. And they weren't even seeking munitions, they wanted food to combat the droughts and ice storms of that decade.

I could continue on from here, but I don't really see any reason to.

Modern politicians aren't really any different from our earliest founders. And the distinction of wealth has never been acceptable conversation except behind closed doors. It was considered such a threat to the early founders that they had to pass legislation decimating the first amendment to keep people from talking about it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#31 Dec 12 2011 at 3:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
For a Republican, you know you fucked up when Fox News rags on you.


Not really. But Murdoch has picked Gingrich over Romney. Just look at their recent interviews, one guy is asked "Why are you so awesome" (and has worked for fox before) and the other guy is asked "why aren't you a real American".
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#32 Dec 12 2011 at 3:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Allegory wrote:
It's fairly disheartening to see people on either side making an issue of the comment. It shows a concern more with a thin veneer of a pleb than anything that lies underneath. It's ok for him to be a millionaire who can't relate to working class citizens, but it's not ok for him to talk about it.


People want their politicians to lie to them all the time, and become upset when the facade breaks.

Then they rail on about 'all those lying politicians'.

Edited, Dec 12th 2011 4:42am by Timelordwho
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#33 Dec 12 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
The funniest part is how Gingrich is a convicted adulterer and is both still in and doing relatively well, but Cain was only accused of it and he gave up and ran scared.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Dec 12 2011 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,574 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Modern politicians aren't really any different from our earliest founders.

Just so you know, but I never stated or implied this was a new occurrence.
Timelordwho wrote:
People want their politicians to lie to them all the time, and become upset when the facade breaks.

Then they rail on about 'all those lying politicians'.

I'm well aware, but it's no less saddening each time.

As a general rule, I think the conservative mantra of "personal responsibility" is a ridiculous notion, because people don't spontaneously change themselves and rise to challenges, they continue with inertia unless acted on by an outside force. However, for the political environment to improve, there has to be personal responsibility. Voters need to value inconvenient truths and devalue advantageous lies.
#35varusword75, Posted: Dec 12 2011 at 9:00 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Boy you liberals are delusional. Obama's not running against the gop he's running against his record. His economic and foreign policies are what's going to do him in; just like it did the democrat congress. Obama's not going to be able to escape the fact that all he's done is spent US tax dollars at a record rate with nothing to show for it but bankrupted govn funded businesses like Solyndra or gm. While i'm a Cain fan I think we all know the right will support whoever becomes the nominee. Then Obama's going to be held accountable for the things he's done to damage this country.
#36 Dec 12 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Someone's panicking to come into a thread about the GOP primaries and start crying about Obama Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37varusword75, Posted: Dec 12 2011 at 9:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joh,
#38 Dec 12 2011 at 9:35 AM Rating: Decent
******
43,650 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
And this isn't a thread about the GOP primaries it's a bash the GOP thread.
Cry more, little ****
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Dec 12 2011 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
You have an odd definition of panic.

I don't know how odd it is to include someone running in to start crying about Obama while the GOP primaries are being discussed. But I understand why you'd be desperate to change the subject Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Dec 12 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Electoral-Vote wrote:
For most Americans, $10,000 is a lot of money. Apparently. for Romney it is not. His estimated net worth is said to be at least $200 million. Thus for him, $10,000 represents 1/200 of 1% of his net worth. For the median family, whose net worth is about $100,000 (including home equity), 1/200 of 1% is $5. So for Romney, making a $10,000 bet takes about as much forethought as for the average person to make a $5 bet. Put in another light, $10,000 is 2-3 months income for the average family.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Dec 12 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
This maybe deserved its own thread but sort of falls on topic here as well:

Rich people don't create jobs. Consumers create jobs.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#42 Dec 12 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
pretty much but when the majority of consumers live paycheck to paycheck and can't go around wining 10K bets off people for quotes from a book. Consumers do create jobs, but that also falls back on the more than wealthy owners and board members who limit job creation in order to have a fatter bottom line. First thing to go isn't Corporate Bonuses. Is Jack and Jills jobs.

It is really a catch 22. Can't have jobs if people don't buy **** can't buy **** without a job. But as long as these rich types keep pocketing multi millions in bonuses (or even hundreds of thousands) It looks pretty obvious why jobs aren't being made. The select few on top are consumed by money. If every CEO took a cut to his bonus and made equal paying jobs from it, it would increase money in the market.

But we both know that will never happen, and so we must live with the government infusing money into the economy in place of the consumer (which is really the consumer spending their own money back into the economy anyway. Stimulus on its own works pretty well, the other tacked on **** you americans do to every bill doesn't).

The only way for the US to pull its consumer based economy back up on its feet is to really tell the media to shut up. The US economy has nearly rebounded to pre recession levels. It is begining to pick up steam. The only detractor is the debt, which needs to be fixed between a tax and cut approach (which will likely be resisted by both parties). The Media is probably the worst influence on the economy currently, and the biggest detractor to consumer spending and overall job creation.

The media looks at numbers like 150,000 jobs created vs 300000 jobs lost. They don't tell you that the net wealth of those 150K jobs is more than the 300K lost. In other threads here everyone seems to echo a common theme that they have better paying jobs then they did years ago.

The point is the American Economy is reverting to a healthy economy. Once the base gets set again then those 300K jobs will come back, because the 150K have more discretionary spending and can do extra **** like movies, resturants, and nights on the town.

Id wager a majority of the jobs the US has shed are service industry based, (fast food, movies etc) jobs that are volatile based on spending. As wealthy jobs increase (IT, Manufacturing etc) so to will the service jobs.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#43 Dec 12 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Electoral-Vote wrote:
For most Americans, $10,000 is a lot of money. Apparently. for Romney it is not. His estimated net worth is said to be at least $200 million. Thus for him, $10,000 represents 1/200 of 1% of his net worth. For the median family, whose net worth is about $100,000 (including home equity), 1/200 of 1% is $5. So for Romney, making a $10,000 bet takes about as much forethought as for the average person to make a $5 bet. Put in another light, $10,000 is 2-3 months income for the average family.


I know that this is the talking point of the day, but what does this have to do with anything? Romney presumably picked that dollar amount *because* it is considered a lot of money and not an amount you'd just sling around casually. It was a poor response to Perry, but not because it shows him to be "out of touch" with the average person. I do find it fascinating that this is the angle that most of the media is focusing on though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Dec 12 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
Someone crunched some numbers and showed that in terms of net worth, Romney making a casual 10K bet is like someone with the median household income making a $5 bet.

Most people don't even have $10,000 lying around in liquid cash form. We do, but that's the "emergency fund" for when one of us gets into a car accident or something.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#45 Dec 12 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
You don't have insurance for that?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#46 Dec 12 2011 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
The most basic level of car insurance only covers liability. So if you were at fault, your insurance would cover any costs the other person has as far as car repairs and medical bills. To be able to cover repairs to your own vehicle (or replacing the vehicle if you total it), you have to have comprehensive insurance, and even then you still have to pay a deductible.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#47 Dec 12 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
Edit: Misread.

My car is a 1997 Honda Accord with 200K. I have the most basic of basic "good driver" insurance on it. If I wreck it and it's my fault, I'll need a new car.

Edited, Dec 12th 2011 7:41pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#48 Dec 12 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
****
7,806 posts
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The most basic level of car insurance only covers liability. So if you were at fault, your insurance would cover any costs the other person has as far as car repairs and medical bills. To be able to cover repairs to your own vehicle (or replacing the vehicle if you total it), you have to have comprehensivecollision insurance, and even then you still have to pay a deductible.

____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#49 Dec 12 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,464 posts
catwho wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of "replacing a car" than I was health insurance.


Oh I assumed Health related because of the 10K number, Considering most cars can be purchased with 0 down and/or a bank loan. (or barring the expensive route a few hundred to a few thousand depending on how used you want to go.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#50 Dec 12 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I know that this is the talking point of the day, but what does this have to do with anything? Romney presumably picked that dollar amount *because* it is considered a lot of money and not an amount you'd just sling around casually.

Why should anyone presume it? I mean, I know you do because Romney is your man and so your little spin machine starts the moment he's threatened but no one else saw it that way and there's no real reason to assume that they rightfully should have. Why not then ten million dollars? A bajillion dollars?

Edited, Dec 12th 2011 6:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Dec 12 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The funniest part is how Gingrich is a convicted adulterer and is both still in and doing relatively well, but Cain was only accused of it and he gave up and ran scared.



Ehhhh, there's a difference between infidelity and sexual harassment. Cain was accused of both. Gingrich is a known serial philanderer while married (which makes his recent "pledge of personal fidelity" to the evangelicals ever so much more gratifying); but I don't recall anyone accusing him of harassment.

Yet, anyway. The week is young.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 32 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Jophiel, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (29)