Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1866308 times)

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #15420 on:** December 29, 2011, 08:38:41 PM »

They forgot Jefferson's slaves and teddy Roosevelt's pile of dead Cubans.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #15421 on:** December 29, 2011, 08:54:08 PM »

Republicans want someone who is electable but is a thoroughbred conservative in the post 2008 sense. The problem is that this person doesn't exist so they're scrambling. Which is great in my opinion because one side will get pissy and hopefully stay home or have shitty turnout come election time.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15422 on:** December 29, 2011, 08:58:17 PM »

I just can't see any large amount of republicans staying home and letting Obama get re-elected. They pretty much hate the man across the board and honestly believe he's destroying the country. No way they say "fuck Romney, I'm staying home" next November

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #15423 on:** December 29, 2011, 08:59:30 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 29, 2011, 08:58:17 PM

I just can't see any large amount of republicans staying home and letting Obama get re-elected. They pretty much hate the man across the board and honestly believe he's destroying the country. No way they say "fuck Romney, I'm staying home" next November

Teatards frequently fuck with the future of the GOP with their dumbfuck antics. It can happen.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15424 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:23:28 PM »

Pretty much all Republicans are going to come out and vote for the nominee, unless it's Paul which of course won't happen. The question is, will enough "independents" (low information voters, idiots, etc) be able to convince themselves they're not voting for someone straight out of the Spanish Inquisition to swing it to the eventual GOP nominee? Odds are no.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15425 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:31:06 PM »

If the economy sucks or is stalled? Why not

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15426 on:** December 29, 2011, 10:38:24 PM »

Because each one of the GOP nominees are terribly, terribly flawed in some way, and enough idiot voters will probably realize that continuing to give the super rich tax cuts isn't a recipe for success.

Mainly though, because you and Cheebs are convinced Obama will lose.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #15427 on:** December 29, 2011, 11:53:06 PM »

Voters are pretty dumb. Im still afraid of some crazy bastard winning just cause hes 'someone different'

Cheebo · « **Reply #15428 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:26:57 PM »

Quote from: Creepy Old Guy on December 29, 2011, 10:38:24 PM

Because each one of the GOP nominees are terribly, terribly flawed in some way, and enough idiot voters will probably realize that continuing to give the super rich tax cuts isn't a recipe for success.

Mainly though, because you and Cheebs are convinced Obama will lose.

I am not convinced. It will be very close between Obama and Romney but I give Obama the slight edge.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15429 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:35:12 PM »

Romney will win with a Bush 2004-esque electoral vote and map imo due to massive drops in youth and minority (Hispanic) voting

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15430 on:** December 30, 2011, 01:39:33 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-tears-iowa-speaking-mother-172353290.html

Oblivion · « **Reply #15431 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:44:00 AM »

Quote

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, who takes every opportunity possible to assure voters that he is the most serious candidate in the race, said he would be open to appointing Sarah Palin to a high level job in his administration. As Right Wing Watch reports, during a Wednesday night tele-town hall hosted by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, a caller asked the former Speaker if he would consider Palin as a running mate. Gingrich responded that Palin “is certainly one of the people you would look at” and told the caller that he is “a great admirer of hers.” He also floated the idea of appointing her Secretary of Energy because, he said, “I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin.” “Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider,” he added.
Quote

Dear GAWD, this would be the best thing ever.

It's a shame Newt'll never get the nom.

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #15432 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:24:01 PM »

Goin' low-brow here but I was looking at a GQ mag at the local salon and they had an article on Huntsman's eldest daughters. All of them are pretty hot. Huntsman for President.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #15433 on:** December 31, 2011, 05:24:11 PM »

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/obama-signs-defense-reauthorization-bill.php?ref=fpa -- the ndaa was a rider on a bill for military funding. if he didn't sign it, he hates the troops and america. it doesn't excuse obama's lack of moral courage, but this is an artifact of congressional patriot games.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15434 on:** December 31, 2011, 05:27:38 PM »

Quote from: Van Cruncheon on December 31, 2011, 05:24:11 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/obama-signs-defense-reauthorization-bill.php?ref=fpa -- the ndaa was a rider on a bill for military funding. if he didn't sign it, he hates the troops and america. it doesn't excuse obama's lack of moral courage, but this is an artifact of congressional patriot games.

Not if you believe Sen. Levin, who claims the administration demanded the language be included in the bill

regardless, this is something that should have been vetoed the minute it was passed; instead it's been signed weeks after passage during the holiday recess. If this was vetoed congress would have had no problem re-writing the bill in order to get out of town for the holidays

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #15435 on:** December 31, 2011, 05:29:38 PM »

yeah, this is really suspect. i'd kill to know what the REAL reason for its 94-6 senate passage and obama's lame duck excusing is.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15436 on:** December 31, 2011, 05:37:44 PM »

His own excuse is laughable too. It's like signing a bill that eliminates the first amendment and saying "I will make sure to never authorize any actions that eliminate free speech." You just opened the door, dumbass

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15437 on:** December 31, 2011, 05:45:02 PM »

https://twitter.com/#!/mattyglesias/status/153242996551323648
I'd love to hear a reporter ask some iteration of this point at Obama's next press conference.

Cheebo · « **Reply #15438 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:10:53 PM »

Look what a journalist wrote about Romney:

Quote

"Above all, he looked like a President. Handsome, silver-haired, robust, masculine, smiling or stern, he seemed cast for the part by Hollywood's Central Casting. Correspondents who liked him called him 'Mr. Straight Arrow;' those whose flesh crawled at his pieties called him 'Mr. Square,' or worse... He would make a forthright statement one day, then, like a man making up his mind in public, contradict it or modify it on another."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

George Romney that is. Back in 1968 when he ran for President.

[close]

It's eerie how well it matches up.

Oblivion · « **Reply #15439 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:34:46 PM »

In fairness to the Chairman, didn't it not matter whether he signed it or not? It got massive votes in both houses didn't it?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15440 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:36:10 PM »

Yea but I'd much rather see this passed by congressional veto override than having a liberal Harvard constitutional law professor pass it

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15441 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:54:59 PM »

I wasn't aware that a liberal Harvard constitutional law professor was in the position to veto it.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #15442 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:43:19 PM »

I'm not sure what the surprise is, Obama has done jack and shit about this type of thing since his declaration to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

That and this is within a year of the 2012 election. Nobody wants to look like a pacifist pussy, especially if there isn't an aggressive public opinion wanting that stuff curtailed.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15443 on:** December 31, 2011, 08:14:42 PM »

I'm pretty sure Obama can't look like a pacifist pussy after taking out Osama and most of his organization. If any president had a mandate on that shit, it should be him. But he has a worse record on civil liberties than Bush so maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Still, this is something people could be taking about for decades.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15444 on:** December 31, 2011, 11:04:30 PM »

Operative word there was liberal. Obama is no liberal.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15445 on:** December 31, 2011, 11:10:47 PM »

The point is that this is a guy who was a pretty liberal constitutional law professor at Harvard. This isn't some guy with a long history of far right views on civil liberties, and yet makes Bush's record on the issue seem good in comparison.

I'm super curious to see what young voters and Hispanics do next year. It's really hard to see either group coming out in droves to support more of the same from this administration.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15446 on:** December 31, 2011, 11:17:07 PM »

Hispanics are going to come out and vote in high numbers, not for any particular love of Obama but because they hate the Republicans so much at this point. Young people who knows. I go back and forth over whether I'll bother to vote for Obama these days.

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #15447 on:** January 01, 2012, 01:06:20 AM »

Shit like this makes Ron Paul a feasible candidate

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #15448 on:** January 01, 2012, 01:21:46 AM »

Quote from: The Business on December 31, 2011, 05:12:03 PM

The president is officially an asshole. He signed the NDAA, making indefinite detention available to all Americans.

Guess we'll be sharing a cell with Wrath for 2012.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15449 on:** January 01, 2012, 01:38:08 AM »

Sharing? The Business will be your guard

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #15450 on:** January 01, 2012, 01:40:02 AM »

We = EB

Get it together, man.

Mandark · « **Reply #15451 on:** January 01, 2012, 03:21:51 AM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on December 31, 2011, 06:36:10 PM

a liberal Harvard constitutional law professor

He taught at Chicago, where he didn't publish anything (liberal or otherwise), and his course materials were notably non-ideological.

The real story here is that civil libertarians are getting their asses kicked and kicked hard. This was what, 93-7 in the Senate? That tells you just who the politicians are actually afraid of, and it's not the ACLU. In the history of the US, has anyone ever lost an elected office because they supported more powers and less oversight of the intelligence services? Is there any natural constituency for fighting this stuff outside a smallish ideological minority? How widespread and blatant would abuse of power have to be before it became a winning issue for liberal activists?

These aren't rhetorical questions; I haven't read stuff like Legacy of Ashes which might shed some light. But you can probably gather that I'm less than optimistic about the situation.

fomalhaut · « **Reply #15452 on:** January 01, 2012, 07:47:38 AM »

So is this not like 10 feet away from pure blooded fascism? why aren't we in fucking arms about this shit? no seriously???

oh wait we'll just be detained... forever. as political dissidents and haters of Freedom

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15453 on:** January 01, 2012, 08:17:00 AM »

Quote from: The Business on January 01, 2012, 04:28:56 AM

It's interesting that Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (one of my guys) voted against it. He doesn't seem to be the type that cares too much about civil liberties. He voted to extend the PATRIOT act. He cares about liberty as far as liberty from taxes and that's about it.

He probably voted against it for financial reasons, to be honest.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #15454 on:** January 01, 2012, 09:19:13 AM »

I'm still not sure why in 2012 people still think Obama is a progressive bro in arms. He's made it pretty clear that is a center right corporatist. At this point, nobody should be fooled by anything he does.

I'll still vote for him because he is not a Republican. The bar is set that low.

Diunx · « **Reply #15455 on:** January 01, 2012, 12:27:54 PM »

Merry Christmas gringos!

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15456 on:** January 01, 2012, 08:28:21 PM »

ha I was wondering when this argument would resurface

Mandark · « **Reply #15457 on:** January 01, 2012, 08:38:31 PM »

I can't bring myself to watch that. Is he meant to be pro-life because abortions are hurting the black community, or because slavery means he should support an expansive definition of "human"?

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15458 on:** January 01, 2012, 11:13:46 PM »

pretty much the latter: he finds it ridiculous that a black man supports the government declaring who is and is not a person.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #15459 on:** January 02, 2012, 02:18:16 PM »

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15460 on:** January 02, 2012, 02:26:26 PM »

"shut it down, that's enough!"

Mandark · « **Reply #15461 on:** January 02, 2012, 02:28:27 PM »

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #15462 on:** January 02, 2012, 02:35:37 PM »

It's depressing that 9 out of 10 top Republican contenders basically see Reagan, or at least want their base to perceive that they see Reagan, as basically on par with Jesus [always right, infallible].

Oblivion · « **Reply #15463 on:** January 02, 2012, 07:52:31 PM »

Quote from: Great Rumbler on January 02, 2012, 02:35:37 PM

It's depressing that 9 out of 10 top Republican contenders basically see Reagan, or at least want their base to perceive that they see Reagan, as basically on par with Jesus [always right, infallible].

Both of whom did many things that current day Republicans would despise them for.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15464 on:** January 02, 2012, 11:47:10 PM »

cheebs where are youuuuu. It's time for predictions for Iowa's results tomorrow

Phoenix Dark's prediction:
1. Santorum
2. Paul
3. Romney
4. Gingrich
5. Perry

Stoney Mason · « **Reply #15465 on:** January 02, 2012, 11:50:15 PM »

I'm rooting for anybody but Romney since he's probably the strongest candidate in a general election.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #15466 on:** January 03, 2012, 11:18:47 AM »

lol @ long hair; fuckin scary

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15467 on:** January 03, 2012, 12:30:05 PM »

Is that Crispin Glover?

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #15468 on:** January 03, 2012, 12:32:24 PM »

Quote from: Spencer on January 03, 2012, 11:59:02 AM

Romney was murdered shortly after that picture was taken, and replaced by a satanic cult.

Come on, that guy is so stoned he probably thinks he's at a Led Zeppelin concert.

Stoney Mason · « **Reply #15469 on:** January 03, 2012, 12:47:44 PM »

Mitt is simply a man of the people.

Cheebo · « **Reply #15470 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:02:44 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on January 02, 2012, 11:47:10 PM

cheebs where are youuuuu. It's time for predictions for Iowa's results tomorrow

Phoenix Dark's prediction:
1. Santorum
2. Paul
3. Romney
4. Gingrich
5. Perry

1. Paul
2. Santorum
3. Romney
4. Gingrich
5. Perry

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #15471 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:06:50 PM »

I'll probably never go to Iowa, I know thats not fair to say- but that place is like another country

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15472 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:08:43 PM »

Iowa isn't bad, it's no Kansas for instance lolol. I've driven through Iowa a couple times and it was very nice

Mupepe · « **Reply #15473 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:15:18 PM »

Paultards are going to be so annoying if he happens to win Iowa.

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #15474 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:15:27 PM »

Yeah, you really ought to give Iowa a try

Cheebo · « **Reply #15475 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:36:15 PM »

Quote from: Mupepe on January 03, 2012, 01:15:18 PM

Paultards are going to be so annoying if he happens to win Iowa.

They will shut up in a week when he loses NH at least.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15476 on:** January 03, 2012, 01:47:15 PM »

I hope he wins Iowa, just so FoC comes back. A man can dream.

Stoney Mason · « **Reply #15477 on:** January 03, 2012, 02:18:26 PM »

I hope Paul wins just so Fox News gets egg on their face for a couple of days.

He's not going to get the nomination, nor would I ever vote for him but I do mostly like Paul's foreign policy stances (with a few exceptions). Back in 08 during the debates he articulated the best anti-war position on either side.

Cheebo · « **Reply #15478 on:** January 03, 2012, 02:21:33 PM »

Quote from: Creepy Old Guy on January 03, 2012, 01:47:15 PM

I hope he wins Iowa, just so FoC comes back. A man can dream.

I tried to do some google stalking on him to see if he was around somewhere. Every link was either GAF or The Bore. :'(

Stoney Mason · « **Reply #15479 on:** January 03, 2012, 02:26:06 PM »

Like most people offline/online they are completely different. I never really interacted with FOC online on forums but over Xbox Live he was a nice dude. We played a good amount of Bad Company 2. But I think eventually he just stopped playing Xbox so I removed him from my friends list to make room for others who play.

News:

Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1866308 times)