Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#602 Jan 25 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,226 posts
So, I've seen Newt's space farmers platform, and it's changed my opinion of him considerably.

[edit: fixed a stray apostrophe]



Edited, Jan 25th 2012 4:13pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#603 Jan 27 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Romney seems to be ahead in Florida so far, though the tea-party and white evangelicals seem to favor Gingrich. Overall it could still go either way.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#604 Jan 27 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't bother watching but, by all reports, Gingrich had a terrible, terrible debate performance last night. I'd assume Romney in FL and the whole thing wrapped up with a bow within the next two weeks.

Edit: Not that it'll make a difference in FL, but Romney has defended multiple investments by saying "It's a blind trust". Video turns up of him debating Ted Kennedy in 1994, saying that blind trusts are an "age old ruse" and that you can control what goes in there.

Edited, Jan 27th 2012 11:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#605 Jan 27 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
Yeah, Newt was pretty flaccid.

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

#606 Jan 29 2012 at 6:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,918 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, Newt was pretty flaccid.



There's a reason he's on wife number 3.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#607 Jan 30 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
That's mean. You know at least one broke down and he traded in for a newer used car.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#608 Jan 30 2012 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More Republicans than ever feel their presidential candidates suck.
Quote:
A new Pew Research poll finds Republicans remain unimpressed with their party's presidential field. In fact, more Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP field is only fair or poor (52%) than did so in early January (44%).

By comparison, just 46% of Republican voters have positive opinions of the GOP field. At about this point four years ago, 68% of Republican and GOP-leaning voters rated the field as excellent or good.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#609 Jan 30 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
For those curious, I was in a training class all last week, so I didn't get to post much. Been avoiding this specifically because it's not an easy/quick response (yeah, I know):


PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Boy you sure love to be patronizing don't you? Do you really think the gays would care if they could get married if there wasn't certain benefits that marriage gave? If there weren't benefits to getting married over getting a civil union, they wouldn't really care about the difference. And yes, I do know that marriage gives special government benefits.


Why not? Heterosexual couples have been getting married for thousands of years before the US government started granting them benefits for doing so. Why then is this considered by **** couples to be the defining point in terms of what is or isn't a marriage? Isn't that silly?

Quote:
So following your logic, there was no need to give people of different colors of skin the right to marry, because that was giving them rights they wouldn't have had otherwise? But yet, when straight people get married, they get all these benefits that they wouldn't have had before. Any person who married another person of the opposite **** would get those benefits. By telling people they can't have those benefits if they marry someone of the same sex, you ARE taking those benefits away from them. Not only is that wrong (even by your book) it's discrimination.


You switched from rights to benefits mid-paragraph. Did you notice that? People of different skin colors were denied the right to marry. Meaning that simply living together and claiming to be husband and wife was illegal in many states and they could be fined and/or jailed for it. That's not the same as being denied a set of benefits because you are married.

And while I suppose technically we can speak of "taking away benefits", since the benefits are something given to you, this does not on total actually take anything away from you. I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at the issue though. I tend to start with the base condition, what things are like if the government doesn't step in and do anything. Then I ask how things are changed by the government's actions. Who gains and who suffers. Not getting a benefit doesn't make you suffer any more than anyone else (like single people) who pay for the cost of those benefits.

Quote:
There certainly aren't any sustained expense of being married, so I don't get why married people get a tax credit. To encourage people to get married I'm guessing, but why does the government care if people get married? So that they have kids so that the cycle of life continues? People already get a tax credit for having kids, and one doesn't need to get married to procreate.


There's an argument for it, but honestly I don't feel like re-hashing it. I will observe that if you can't figure out why we provide marriage benefits for anyone in the first place, then perhaps you're not in a good position to argue about who should receive those benefits.

Quote:
Quote:
When? The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the White House for 6 years. Can you show me a single thing done at the federal level during that time which works towards turning our country into a theocracy? This is often claimed by screaming folks on the left, but it's amazing how it never actually happens.


Okay, that probably is a bit of a hyperbole on my part. But can you at least understand why those of us who aren't Christian might feel that way? Perhaps for you the reason to oppose **** marriage is because it would cost the tax payers more money, but that isn't ever the argument we hear against it. It's always "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman!" or some variant of that.


It's the argument you choose to hear. You ignore all other arguments. And frankly, it's the most common argument because when you seek out the opinions on **** marriage from religious people, you can't be surprised that you'll get a religious answer. And let's face it, whenever someone in the media wants to ask someone on the right about **** marriage, they magically find the most religious person they can. Perhaps if you spent the effort looking for other reasons, you might just find them? Hell. Google "secular arguments against **** marriage" sometime. Here's the first result. Amusingly, this is *exactly* the same argument I've made on this forum many many times.

Yet, every time this subject comes up, someone insists that "no one makes any argument other than religious". No. You just don't listen to any argument other than the religious ones. And when you do hear them, you promptly forget them the next time the subject comes up.

Quote:
Conservatives in several different states have tried to get person-hood amendments passed, so that legally, an embryo is a person. Why do they want to do this? Because they believe that life begins at conception because that's what it says in the bible. That is a great example of how some conservatives are trying to pass laws that are based on theology.


Lol. It doesn't say that in the bible. In fact, one can make a strong case that the bible hints not only at abortion being acceptable, but also a somewhat "pro-choice" position (men are not allowed to abort a child, but women are under no such restriction, for example). The argument against abortion, while often expressed in religious terms (a soul entering the body from the moment of conception), has a **** of a lot more to do with broader ethical changes over time. It's a case of religious rules following social and ethical changes and *not* the other way around.


Quote:
Besides complaining that they don't want to pay for other people's health problems, one of the biggest complaints I hear from the right against having a universal health care system, is that it would take away their choice. I don't see how that's any different than what health insurance companies do. They have a list of preferred providers, and if you want to have your medical bills paid for, you have to go to those doctors. How is that a choice?


You can choose not to buy insurance from that company, or even to buy it at all. Mandated insurance takes that choice away and is a direct infringement of our rights.

Quote:
I suppose you could switch to a different health insurance company, but what if you have diabetes? What if you're pregnant? What if you have a history of ear infections? Those are all pre-existing conditions, and any new health insurance company you go to will not pay for any care related to those conditions. So once people pick a health insurance company, they're pretty much stuck with it unless they are healthy.


You're arguing by exception though. And the fact is that those people still have a choice. If continuing to keep that insurance is the better economic choice for them, then they'll make it. If it isn't, then they wont. It's not about the people who, because of their own health issues would make that choice anyway, but about all those who might make a different choice, but are now forced to make the one the government wants them to make.

Quote:
Quote:
Because liberty does not guarantee an outcome. Liberty simply means that no one else will step in and change your outcomes against your will. Even if it's for the better. There's a difference between arguing that we should do something because you think it's a nice thing to do and demanding that we do it because it's a violation of someone's rights if we don't.


So what you are saying, is that it's okay for a health insurance company to deny paying for treatment for a life-threatening condition, even though they have paid their premiums every month, because if they hadn't had the insurance in the first place they wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways, and they still would have died? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. If that's not what you were trying to say, please elaborate.


Where the **** did you get that? If the thing you are paying the insurance company to do includes covering you if/when you get a life threatening illness, then you absolutely have a right to receive that treatment. You've paid for it.

All I'm saying is that you should always have the right to choose to buy or not buy that insurance in the first place. If you choose not to, then *you* have to suffer the consequences. Liberty does not guarantee an outcome. It does mean that you are free to make your own choice and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences naturally. I'm not sure how you got that so wrong.

Quote:
When you pay your premiums for health insurance, you are doing so under the belief that if you get sick, your insurance company will pay for you to get better. If you get sick, and the insurance company decides not to pay for you to get better, because it would cost them too much money, that IS stepping in and changing the outcome against your will. The insurance company paying for you to get better is not a "nice thing to do," it is what they owe their customers for them paying their premium. To not pay for their clients to get better, is essentially theft. They paid for a service they did not get.



Yes. And no one is arguing that insurance companies should be free to do this. We're arguing against the mandated payment of insurance premiums by everyone who can afford them (and government subsidizing the rest). That's the point where liberty is involved. The outcome I'm talking about is that someone who can't afford insurance wont have it. Taking money from someone else to give them insurance is altering the outcome. We can do this because it's a nice thing to do, but we should never do so because the person has a right to have their health insurance paid for.


Does that make sense?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#610 Jan 30 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,197 posts
Sorry. Teal deer.
____________________________
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
#611 Jan 31 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
So I turned on CNN to see how the Florida Primary was going, and there's a talking horse discussing Santorum's future prospects. I'm ... I'm not quite sure what the **** that is about.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#612 Jan 31 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Romney's trouncing Gingrich. Big time. I think that the initial bump from South Carolina wore off as people suddenly realized that as much as they liked Gingrich for beating up on stupid CNN journalists, his career choices and actions for the last decade basically kneecaps 3/4ths of the GOP case for replacing Obama with a Republican.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#613 Jan 31 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
So as romney goes so goes gbajis post count?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#614 Jan 31 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
******
43,406 posts
The most stunning thing is the pundits keep calling it a heated campaign, like somehow there was any chance Romney wasn't going to get the nod.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#615 Jan 31 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
So I turned on CNN to see how the Florida Primary was going, and there's a talking horse discussing Santorum's future prospects. I'm ... I'm not quite sure what the **** that is about.


Mr. Ed is a fundy Republican. You knew it all along. You just didn't want to believe it.

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

#616 Jan 31 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Samira wrote:
Mr. Ed is a fundy Republican.
Of course, of course.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#617 Jan 31 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The most stunning thing is the pundits keep calling it a heated campaign, like somehow there was any chance Romney wasn't going to get the nod.


According to Joph, Romney was the GOP establishment pick last time around, and he didn't win then, right? So maybe some mavericky type candidate will come along and win it. You just never know!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#618 Jan 31 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
That's actually not the argument he made about you, but seeing as how he didn't hold your hand and led you down the path I'm not at all surprised you didn't figure it out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#619 Jan 31 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
That's actually not the argument he made about you, but seeing as how he didn't hold your hand and led you down the path I'm not at all surprised you didn't figure it out.


/shrug

He specifically argued that my support of Romney back in 2008 didn't mean that I wasn't just following the current GOP party line because Romney was the "GOP establishment candidate" back then too. Which, given that Romney didn't win the nomination in 2008, apparently means that this supposed "GOP establishment" is somewhat meaningless. Either they aren't who Joph thinks they are *or* they don't have the sort of power/influence he thinks they have. Pick one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#620 Jan 31 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Being the establishment candidate doesn't mean you'll automatically win. Smiley: oyvey

It does make it more likely.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#621 Jan 31 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Being the establishment candidate doesn't mean you'll automatically win. Smiley: oyvey


So what exactly makes a candidate the "establishment candidate" then? I mean, aren't we just basically picking a term out of our butts and bandying it about based on what we want people to think of a candidate? When Romney wasn't showing huge polling margins, it was because the "establishment wasn't behind him". This last week, when he's trouncing Gringrich in the polls, suddenly he's the "establishment candidate". So, were the people saying those things talking about two different groups?

Who is this establishment? I still basically think that the group who make it up change based on what the person using the word wants it to be at the moment. So one week it means some sort of council of religious leaders. The next week, it's a group of business lobbyists. And maybe next week, it'll be whomever the Tea Party leaders (hah. Whoever we decide those are this week) support.


I just think that's an incredible simplification of what's really going on. So much so that it's a meaningless thing to say.

Quote:
It does make it more likely.


If you say so. No one yet seems to be able to give me a list of the names of those who make up this establishment, so I'm not sure how valuable that really is. Ever think that people just make this up as they go along to suit whatever angle they want to present at this moment?

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#622 Jan 31 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
I'm calling cross-threads shenanigans here. Keep this shit in the **** thread!
____________________________
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.
#623 Jan 31 2012 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Debalic wrote:
I'm calling cross-threads shenanigans here. Keep this shit in the **** thread!


Wah! Smiley: smile

Ok. So out of the first 4 primaries, Romney has won two handedly, tied/came in silly-close second in one, and came in a respectable 2nd in one. Versus Santorum, who won/tied one, came in far 3/4th/whatever in three. Or Gingrich who won one, came 2nd on one, and came in far 3/4th/whatever in two. Or Paul who won one, came in second in one, and distant 3/4th/whatever in the others. Honestly might be off on some of the 2nd or 3rd places, but despite what appears to be massive spin in the media, I haven't seen this strong a start in an open primary for a very long time (maybe not even in my lifetime, but I don't feel like looking it up).


Anyone still playing the "Romney just doesn't have the support he needs" card out there?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#624 Jan 31 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Debalic wrote:
Keep this shit in the **** thread!


Now that's an Asylum post I can get behind.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#625 Jan 31 2012 at 10:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Out of the first four primaries, there has been five first place finishes? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#626 Jan 31 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Out of the first four primaries, there has been five first place finishes? Smiley: dubious


One of them was a "tied/close second place" and the other a "won/tied". Or did you miss the whole bit where Iowa was initially called for Romney, then on final count went to Santorum, with a total of 40 vote differential between the two counts?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#627 Jan 31 2012 at 11:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Oh god I knew you'd automatically assume you were right. Smiley: laugh

Try counting again. Do a little fact checking, too. I'll be here laughing.

Edit: You know what? Forget that, you won't so I'll just tell you now. Paul hasn't won a primary.

(Romney 2 + Santorum 1 + Gingrich 1 + Paul 1 = 5. Paul being the error in your math and facts.)

Edited, Feb 1st 2012 12:35am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#628 Jan 31 2012 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Being the establishment candidate doesn't mean you'll automatically win. Smiley: oyvey

Ask one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I'm uninterested in trying to teach Gbaji the very basics about politics.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#629 Feb 01 2012 at 5:17 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Could have fooled me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#630 Feb 01 2012 at 6:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My mistake in the past was to treat him like he had a few years under his belt. I didn't know this was the remedial class.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#631 Feb 01 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 posts
I'm sure he knows literally two hundred times more than you do.
____________________________
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.
#632 Feb 01 2012 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
******
43,406 posts
You're just projecting.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#633 Feb 01 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I'm uninterested in trying to teach Gbaji the very basics about politics.
Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#634 Feb 01 2012 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney, the quote machine who keeps on giving, told us last night that "I'm not concerned about the very poor" -- he's concerned with the middle class Americans who are struggling. When it was pointed out that -- surprise -- the very poor are struggling as well, Romney said "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus."

Certainly a great way to shake that "rich guy who can't connect" label.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#635 Feb 01 2012 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,197 posts
The problem is the "establisment" aka the party machine is no longer on the same wavelength as the actual GOP rank and file voters, who are splintered off into the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and the leftover Southern Strategy can't-stand-Obama people who would normally fall in either of the first two camps. So while Romney is the Establishment Candidate, he really only has the solid backing of the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives, who are for the most part white Christians, are hesitant about Romney due to his past history with abortion and his religion.

Newt won SC because the social conservatives tag teamed with the I-can't-stand-Obama folks to vote for him. FL, on the other hand, went for Romney because there are a lot fewer Southern Strategy good old boys down there, and a lot more elderly fiscal conservatives.

The Establisment, aka the GOP machine, is who wants Romney to win, because he'll bring in the $$ necessary for down ticket races and in a jam can self fund a lot of his own campaign. The peasants are revolting because two thirds of them find Romney revolting.
____________________________
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
#636 Feb 01 2012 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh god I knew you'd automatically assume you were right. Smiley: laugh

Try counting again. Do a little fact checking, too. I'll be here laughing.

Edit: You know what? Forget that, you won't so I'll just tell you now. Paul hasn't won a primary.

(Romney 2 + Santorum 1 + Gingrich 1 + Paul 1 = 5. Paul being the error in your math and facts.)



Did I say that Paul had won one? Holy hell! Smiley: confused


To be fair, for him, second place is a victory. Yup. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it! Smiley: nod
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#637 Feb 01 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney, the quote machine who keeps on giving, told us last night that "I'm not concerned about the very poor" -- he's concerned with the middle class Americans who are struggling. When it was pointed out that -- surprise -- the very poor are struggling as well, Romney said "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus."

Certainly a great way to shake that "rich guy who can't connect" label.


Yeah, a rising tide drowns all strandees. **** 'em, says Willard.

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

#638 Feb 01 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney, the quote machine who keeps on giving, told us last night that "I'm not concerned about the very poor" -- he's concerned with the middle class Americans who are struggling. When it was pointed out that -- surprise -- the very poor are struggling as well, Romney said "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor.... You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus."


Nice to see you parroting what your left wing sources told you to parrot. It's refreshing in a everyday sort of way. Smiley: wink


You did actually check the full quote, right? Where he said he wasn't worried about the very poor because they have a safety net, and he's not concerned about the rich because they're doing well, but he's most worried about the other 95% who fall in the middle. Funny, isn't that the exact same argument made by Obama to garner support for his health care bill. Remember how the problem wasn't the very poor who could qualify for state assistance, but the working class folks who earned enough to not qualify for benefits, but not enough to buy insurance?

I'm sure you do, because you parroted that bit a dozen times or so yourself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#639 Feb 01 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Nice to see you parroting what your left wing sources told you to parrot.

You mean the video?

Quote:
You did actually check the full quote, right?

Of course. You do know that won't matter a shit when the ads start rolling out with the quote, right? Hence me saying what a great quote machine Romney is?

Maybe you don't. You're still on a preschool level when it comes to politics.

But say "parrot" some more. That really stings as you put your full naivety on display Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#640 Feb 01 2012 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
catwho wrote:
The problem is the "establisment" aka the party machine is no longer on the same wavelength as the actual GOP rank and file voters, who are splintered off into the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and the leftover Southern Strategy can't-stand-Obama people who would normally fall in either of the first two camps. So while Romney is the Establishment Candidate, he really only has the solid backing of the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives, who are for the most part white Christians, are hesitant about Romney due to his past history with abortion and his religion.


Honestly? I still think that what the "establishment" is varies based on who's talking and what they're trying to say. I mean, if what you say is true, then you're saying that the establishment is made up of fiscal conservatives and is in opposition (or disagreement) with the social conservatives and the presumed racist folks? But when someone on the left makes a point about Romney being the "establishment candidate", do you honestly think that's what they want people to interpret that as?

So Joph was really just saying that Romney has the support of fiscal conservatives? Well... Duh! I'm pretty sure you and I both know that's not the message he was trying to get across, and it's certainly not what various liberal media types want people to think whey they label him the establishment candidate. They want people to think the worst kinds of things about who's behind him and what power and influence they're using to make sure he wins.


Why else use the phrase? If it's not that, then what does it mean? I'll ask again: Who is the establishment? If you don't know, then can't we just chalk this up to fear mongering rhetoric?


Quote:
Newt won SC because the social conservatives tag teamed with the I-can't-stand-Obama folks to vote for him. FL, on the other hand, went for Romney because there are a lot fewer Southern Strategy good old boys down there, and a lot more elderly fiscal conservatives.


Newt won SC for one reason and one reason only: He made conservatives extremely happy with his bashing of that CNN journalist during the debate. It's something that conservatives have been wishing their leaders would do more often (call journalists to the mat when they do that kind of stuff). That euphoria about his response lasted about 4-5 days, which was long enough to give him the win. But after it wore off, people looked over at Newt, much as they might look at someone they brought home during a drunken night at a club, and went "WTF?".


Quote:
The Establisment, aka the GOP machine, is who wants Romney to win, because he'll bring in the $$ necessary for down ticket races and in a jam can self fund a lot of his own campaign. The peasants are revolting because two thirds of them find Romney revolting.



I'm sure that's how some want it to be viewed. Ohhhh... The scary establishment!!! Run away children before you are eaten. Really?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#641 Feb 01 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I still think that what the "establishment" is varies based on who's talking and what they're trying to say.

When you ask random people, sure. When you ask people who actually put any effort into knowing about the term, not really.

Quote:
So Joph was really just saying that Romney has the support of fiscal conservatives?

No. Romney does indeed have support from that branch, but it wasn't what I was saying.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#642 Feb 01 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nice to see you parroting what your left wing sources told you to parrot.

You mean the video?


Which you saw after you read about it on politico or huffpost? Be honest.

Quote:
Quote:
You did actually check the full quote, right?

Of course. You do know that won't matter a shit when the ads start rolling out with the quote, right?


When they leave off the second half of the sentence? Yeah. Just like virtually every single news source reporting this is doing right now. And you wonder why conservatives think the media is liberal-biased.

So you're basically saying that the truth wont matter if enough people repeat the lie? And you think that's a good thing because it helps achieve a political end you prefer? How very moral of you!

Quote:
But say "parrot" some more. That really stings as you put your full naivety on display Smiley: smile


So you watched this happen live? Or you read about it from someone making hay about just the first half of the sentence? You know, the same half that you repeated. So someone saw the video and wrote an article about it in which they cut off the second half in order to make the quote look bad. Then you repeated that same edited quote here.


Did the definition of "parrot" change somewhere along the line?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#643 Feb 01 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which you saw after you read about it on politico or huffpost?

Wait, you're crying about Politico being a "left wing source"? Smiley: laugh Not that I first saw it on Politico but thanks for cracking me up. You ARE well indoctrinated, aren't you?

Quote:
So you're basically saying that the truth wont matter if enough people repeat the lie?

Welcome to politics, Pollyanna. Check your precious virginity at the door.

I don't remember all these tears when Romney pulled a clip of Obama quoting McCain out of context and then defended doing so and refused to apologize for it or take it down. How very moral of you!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#644 Feb 01 2012 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I still think that what the "establishment" is varies based on who's talking and what they're trying to say.

When you ask random people, sure. When you ask people who actually put any effort into knowing about the term, not really.


Ok. Then who is the GOP establishment? Give me a list of names. If you cant, then isn't your label really just about scaring folks?

Quote:
Quote:
So Joph was really just saying that Romney has the support of fiscal conservatives?

No. Romney does indeed have support from that branch, but it wasn't what I was saying.


Then what were you saying? What exact group of people were you saying were supporting him which makes him the "establishment candidate"? Can you do that? Or are you just repeating what you heard someone else say, without ever having given it a second thought because it seemed like good scary rhetoric?

Edited, Feb 1st 2012 5:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#645 Feb 01 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which you saw after you read about it on politico or huffpost?

Wait, you're crying about Politico being a "left wing source"? Smiley: laugh Not that I first saw it on Politico but thanks for cracking me up. You ARE well indoctrinated, aren't you?


But you didn't see it live? You watched a clip some news source showed you. I don't care what news source it was. It shows that you are parroting what someone else said. If you'd watched the clip yourself with no editorial and no one telling you what was significant about it and then independently concluded that he was attempting to say that poor people don't matter to him, you'd be an idiot, but at least you would be forming your own idiotic ideas instead of repeating someone else's lies.

Quote:
I don't remember all these tears when Romney pulled a clip of Obama quoting McCain out of context and then defended doing so and refused to apologize for it or take it down. How very moral of you!


I don't remember me hearing that clip and then repeating it here either. See how that works?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#646 Feb 01 2012 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Keep this shit in the **** thread!


Now that's an Asylum post I can get behind.


I think you are looking for the DADT thread.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#647 Feb 01 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Then who is the GOP establishment?

Why? Give me some incentive. I'm not about to start giving definitions or names or whatever so you can throw a hissy fit and say none of them count. I'm 100% okay with you being ignorant about it; give me a real reason to educate you.

gbaji wrote:
But you didn't see it live? You watched a clip some news source showed you. I don't care what news source it was. It shows that you are parroting what someone else said.

Smiley: laugh I don't even know where to start with that mess of logic.

Quote:
I don't remember me hearing that clip and then repeating it here either. See how that works?

Well, no one ever accused you of getting your news from anywhere. But now that you know about, would you like to comment on Romney's moral character?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#648 Feb 01 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Then who is the GOP establishment?

Why? Give me some incentive.


How about defending the claim you made that Romney is the GOP establishment candidate? If you don't know who the GOP establishment is, then you can't be basing this claim on your own assessment of Romney, but just repeating (dare I say "parroting?) what you heard someone else say without ever bothering to check to see if it's true or even if it has any meaning at all.

If you want to have a shred of believability here, yeah. You kinda should be able to tell us who this GOP establishment is that you claim has chosen Romney to be their guy. If you can't, then your statement is meaningless words.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
But you didn't see it live? You watched a clip some news source showed you. I don't care what news source it was. It shows that you are parroting what someone else said.

Smiley: laugh I don't even know where to start with that mess of logic.


I'll interpret that to mean "I don't want to admit that I just repeated what someone else told me". Did you, or did you not see Romney make that statement live on TV with no editorial involved? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you saw the clip after being told what to think about it by someone else.

Pure speculation on my part of course, but I'm just going with the odds here. I mean, what a coincidence that you bring this up out of the blue at the same time a dozen or so news agencies picked up the story and put out articles with headlines repeating exactly the half of the sentence which you quoted. I mean, it's possible that you saw him say that on the interview itself. You could have been watching CNN live while working after all and then decided to post about it here. But that's less likely than that you heard about it after the fact from a news agency which stripped off the second half of the sentence so as to get people like you to repeat just the half that sounds bad.


Which is precisely what you did. Nice little foot solder that you are.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't remember me hearing that clip and then repeating it here either. See how that works?

Well, no one ever accused you of getting your news from anywhere. But now that you know about, would you like to comment on Romney's moral character?


Sure. I think he has great moral character. Not sure what that has to do with the situation at hand, but it's like Joph tactic number 1. When losing an argument, try to change the subject.

Edited, Feb 1st 2012 7:00pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#649 Feb 01 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,197 posts
The problem with Romney's quote is that the GOP has been doing its damnedest for the last thirty years to destroy that very safety net.
____________________________
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
#650 Feb 01 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How about defending the claim you made that Romney is the GOP establishment candidate?

To who? You? You have a vested interest in just saying "No, no, no!!!" over and over.

You'll have to do better than that.

Quote:
If you want to have a shred of believability here, yeah.

With who? You? I'm not worried about anyone else thinking I'm just making it all up or whatever. I'm not worried about you either, really but I don't feel any particular impetus to make sure Samira knows what the GOP establishment entails.

You'll have to do better than that.

Quote:
I'll interpret that to mean "I don't want to admit that I just repeated what someone else told me".

Feel free.

Quote:
Sure. I think he has great moral character.

So long as you feel taking quotes wildly out of context for political ads is a sign of great moral character, you should have no problems Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#651 Feb 01 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
catwho wrote:
The problem with Romney's quote is that the GOP has been doing its damnedest for the last thirty years to destroy that very safety net.


Then why not include the full quote where he mentions the safety net, and then make that very point? If the intent was to honestly debate the relative positions and platforms involved rather than make a cheap and misleading headline/whatever to get people on your side that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 30 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, Tasera, Anonymous Guests (28)