US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of their principles appear moronic when dissected. "I don't want Government in my Medicare',

I love this argument. When Fox and the like go crazy over Government meddling of Medicare.

Especially considering Medicare is actually a Government program. Theyve already fecking meddling with it from the start :lol:
 
This particular one, I've always thought was misread by liberals 'Keep your Goverment hands off my Medicare' doesn't mean 'I don't want the Govt. to administer Medicare' but more 'I've already paid my money into the scheme, don't make any changes to it.' Applicable, as noted fraud Paul Ryan says, to people like his mom, those 55 and older.

No it's not, it's a bunch of daft old people who don't have a sophisticated knowledge of politics and governance spouting off because they think the black commies are coming for them.
 
No it's not, it's a bunch of daft old people who don't have a sophisticated knowledge of politics and governance spouting off because they think the black commies are coming for them.

Well... that's obviously true as a general observation. But you've missed the point of what I was saying.
 
Well... that's obviously true as a general point. But you've missed the point of what I was saying.

Not really. I just think it's crazy to assume that the program can't be modified to suit modern requirements. Baby boomers are the most privileged,coddled generation ever...I'm sick of their whining.
 
Not really. I just think it's crazy to assume that the program can't be modified to suit modern requirements. Baby boomers are the most privileged,coddled generation ever...I'm sick of their whining.

That's fair, but Ole Toe Poke's post proves my point that liberals are responding to the illiterate construction of the sentence rather than expanding on what you're saying here.
 
That's fair, but Ole Toe Poke's post proves my point that liberals are responding to the illiterate construction of the sentence rather than expanding on what you're saying here.

I hear it all the time about Government needing to get out of the way, or not being able to do anything constructive and it's frustrating. For me, the only time Govt. is shit is because the electorate aren't getting involved enough and keeping an eye on it.

Those southern state tea partiers living their frontier-myth existence that everything they have achieved has been solely down to them are full of shit. Bad govt. is bad, good govt. is good IMO.
 
6a00d834520b4b69e20133f583abc2970b-500wi
 
I watched Hannity hoping that he'd have come up with something to blame the hurricane or some lack of response on Obama but it was just more of this Benghazi shit.

At least try and entertain us with Kenyan witch doctors coming to the aid of Obama.
 
Yeah....I think election night has to be Fox all the way. I watched Jon Stewart last time but I want to really enjoy this one.
 
They've all got live streams on their websites don't they? Or does Fox not?
 
The confidence on here!

As I said, the chance of a Romney win is the same as that of a Liverpool win at OT. You cnuts must be remarkably sanguine during those games. I'm always, surprise surprise, shitting it.

It's a denial of change is what it is. They somehow think that America can go back to the 1950's even though their view of that era isn't a reality-based one.

A lot of their principles appear moronic when dissected. "I don't want Government in my Medicare', 'slash government spending....go to war against Muslims' etc. etc.

Well yes. But my point is that they're not prepared to sell those (moronic) beliefs down the river as soon as they see the chance to sit behind a big desk. They refuse to moderate their ideology at all to political reality. That in its retarded way is admirable.
 
As long as Vidic doesn't get sent off we'll be fine.
 
The confidence on here!

As I said, the chance of a Romney win is the same as that of a Liverpool win at OT. You cnuts must be remarkably sanguine during those games. I'm always, surprise surprise, shitting it.



Well yes. But my point is that they're not prepared to sell those (moronic) beliefs down the river as soon as they see the chance to sit behind a big desk. They refuse to moderate their ideology at all to political reality. That in its retarded way is admirable.

Well that's because they don't believe in govt. They elect tea partiers to go to legislatures and be obstructionist. They want them to do nothing and ensure that others can't do anything.

There's nothing admirable about that.
 
Yes but most people are seduced by power. Including most anti-government types. They talk about getting rid of government but in fact they'd like nothing more than running things their way.

But maybe the Tea Partiers are the same and are just too arrogant to accept that not enough people might agree with them for their position to be practically enforceable.
 
Tea partiers think they are heroic. They think they are frontier types battling through modern life on their lonesome without needing any govt. assistance whatsoever.

It's a load of shit.
 
Silver seems to be laying low in light of the recent articles criticizing him, mainly from the right.

He's being very snarky on twitter, it's entertaining. The update tonight should be a good one though, unless Romney gets a couple of very good polls out.
 
I think if Obama wins there'll be a long post explaining why his critics are idiots.

If Romney wins there'll be a post explaining that just because you give someone a below 50% chance of winning, it doesn't mean you're wrong if they win. Some right-wing spastics, sorry pundits, have had trouble grasping that:

“So should Mitt Romney win on Nov. 6, it’s difficult to see how people can continue to put faith in the predictions of someone who has never given that candidate anything higher than a 41 percent chance of winning.”

There's quite a sardonic Ezra Klein post defending his mate Nate against the onslaught of Politico innumerates.
 
Yeah the Tea Party is far more impressive than Occupy because 1) they actually have a platform 2) they vote 3) they use the first two to impact politics in their party

Occupy don't have a party- neither party is actually for regulating Wall Street and a genuinely more caring form of capitalism.

The Tea Party was 'successful' because their message benefits the corporate and big money donors that control politics in the US
 
Occupy don't have a party- neither party is actually for regulating Wall Street and a genuinely more caring form of capitalism.

The Tea Party was 'successful' because their message benefits the corporate and big money donors that control politics in the US

Yes they do. Their party is the Democrats.
 
The Democrats failed to fully embrace Occupy because Occupy doesn't have a clear agenda and more importantly, the voting bloc and discipline to make Democrats embrace them.


The establishment GOP ran many candidates against the Tea Party but the Tea Party actually went out and voted their guys in and demonstrated political power which forced the establishment to embrace them.

Also, drum circles are dumb.
 
And in the process they've spunked their chance of a very winnable senate.

Which is bad for the GOP, not the Tea Party. As you said above, these lunatics are true believers and they care more about purging the RINOs than having 48/51 senators. They've pulled the party significantly to the right and made the budget deficit a huge issue, which it has no right to be in a recession. That's a hell of a lot more than what Occupy has accomplished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.