Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#627 Jan 31 2012 at 11:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 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
******
35,474 posts
Could have fooled me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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
******
20,643 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
*******
50,767 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
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I'm uninterested in trying to teach Gbaji the very basics about politics.
Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#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
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.
#636 Feb 01 2012 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 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
******
29,360 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
******
35,568 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
******
35,568 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
******
35,568 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
******
35,568 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
******
35,568 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
****
7,564 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Keep this shit in the pissing 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. 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
******
35,568 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
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.
#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
******
35,568 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: 259 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)