or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 65

post #3201 of 10454

Over/under odds of Barry popping back in at the mere mention of Paul's name? It'd back up my theory that he's an imp who owes Paul a blood debt.

post #3202 of 10454

"Ron's a job creator!"

post #3203 of 10454

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post


I've seen similar space needs for solar powered steam turbines. It's ridiculous what little space we would need in the unused desert to take care of this with tech we have on the shelf right now. The challenge would be to get the electrictity through our antiquated power grid. Are we wiling to surrender a bit of land in order to effectively eliminate the use of coal in the US? Or will some champion of the cousin of the snail darter tie this up in courts until we can surf to Denver?

 

Hyperbole, yes, but I am very curious about this. We have solutions availabe to us if we can get enough people on boad for it in order to defeat the obstructionists on both sides of the political spectrum. 

 

 

It's kind of a national security boondoggle, relying so heavily on a single source of electricity (i.e. the giant desert solar complex).  But if you can figure out a solution to that, it comes down to a simple lack of vision on the part of policy-makers.

post #3204 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

 

 

It's kind of a national security boondoggle, relying so heavily on a single source of electricity (i.e. the giant desert solar complex).  But if you can figure out a solution to that, it comes down to a simple lack of vision on the part of policy-makers.



Well, picture this: a large % of homes and businesses in the US install their own solar panels, and can feed excess power back into the Grid as needed (we'd need a Smart Grid in place for this to happen). Now there is less reliance on any one source of power, and if there is a catastrophic failure at the major plants, it won't bring everyone down.


Now add in things like Hydro, wind power (which can also be localised), Geo (if they can figure out how to do it without causing earthquakes), ocean wave power etc and we could have an almost Jeffersonian ideal of Yeoman power producers.

post #3205 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Well, picture this: a large % of homes and businesses in the US install their own solar panels, and can feed excess power back into the Grid as needed (we'd need a Smart Grid in place for this to happen). Now there is less reliance on any one source of power, and if there is a catastrophic failure at the major plants, it won't bring everyone down.


Now add in things like Hydro, wind power (which can also be localised), Geo (if they can figure out how to do it without causing earthquakes), ocean wave power etc and we could have an almost Jeffersonian ideal of Yeoman power producers.

 

We all remember that Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House only to have Reagan remove them not too long after he took office...basically, Reagan was a giant dick and wanted to suck up to the oil companies.
 

One huge problem will be local power companies and their monopolies. They don't like it when you don't need them.


IIRC, a good deal of local power suppliers have been disallowing customers from selling back excess power as this would not allow the power companies to make any money off of their consumers....another 'dick' move.

 

Personally, I think there should be mandatory solar panels installed on all new homes being built. It might raise the initial price of the home but will be much more beneficial in the long run.

 

post #3206 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

 

 

It's kind of a national security boondoggle, relying so heavily on a single source of electricity (i.e. the giant desert solar complex).  But if you can figure out a solution to that, it comes down to a simple lack of vision on the part of policy-makers.


Security?  Like, a lot of it?

 

It's not like people are advocating that we wouldn't have any back up systems in case of emergency.  And while I'll cop to not being an expert, my gut feeling is that we're a long way from developing a power source that is getting-blown-up-proof.  Although solar seems like a step up in that regard from fossil fuels or particularly nuclear.

 

post #3207 of 10454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

It's kind of a national security boondoggle, relying so heavily on a single source of electricity (i.e. the giant desert solar complex).  But if you can figure out a solution to that, it comes down to a simple lack of vision on the part of policy-makers.



Well, don't just build one easily targeted complex. Build ten of them, smaller in size, distributed all over the desert. That along with the diversity of other systems as suggested by others, would make us energy rich and independent of all other nations. And being energy rich drives the cost of manufacturing down, bringing industry back to us. It's a win-win. As for the power companies in oppositon to this strategy, whatever happened to the railroad barons? They adapted or faded from memory. They could get in on exporting this tech to other countries and make a bundle. Or they can obstruct and still fade away....

post #3208 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

We all remember that Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House only to have Reagan remove them not too long after he took office...basically, Reagan was a giant dick and wanted to suck up to the oil companies.
 

One huge problem will be local power companies and their monopolies. They don't like it when you don't need them.


IIRC, a good deal of local power suppliers have been disallowing customers from selling back excess power as this would not allow the power companies to make any money off of their consumers....another 'dick' move.

 

Personally, I think there should be mandatory solar panels installed on all new homes being built. It might raise the initial price of the home but will be much more beneficial in the long run.

 



Solar was way unprofitable in the 70's. Had the Government launched an Apollo like project to make Solar viable...but that was a pipedream with a President who thought we were in a malaise, and as you say, Reagan put the kibosh on alternative energy.

 

I don't see Utilities stepping up on this because 1) they are short term profit driven 2) they would have to re-engineer the entire Power Grid to make it work, a huge capital outlay to 3) as you say, devolve their own power and make themselves less of a monopoly (it would not eliminate them as such). This is where Government needs to step in.


Edited by Cylon Baby - 3/23/12 at 8:54am
post #3209 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post



Well, don't just build one easily targeted complex. Build ten of them, smaller in size, distributed all over the desert. That along with the diversity of other systems as suggested by others, would make us energy rich and independent of all other nations. And being energy rich drives the cost of manufacturing down, bringing industry back to us. It's a win-win. As for the power companies in oppositon to this strategy, whatever happened to the railroad barons? They adapted or faded from memory. They could get in on exporting this tech to other countries and make a bundle. Or they can obstruct and still fade away....

 

Obviously redundancy is the solution, and someone above my pay-grade is capable of coming up with good ideas, it's just a matter of what and at what cost.  The way this was explained to me by my astrophysics professor 6 years or so ago, in order for one of these mega solar plants to generate the kind of power we're talking about, it would have to be enormous (and he was of the mind that it was worth it).  I just remember thinking to myself that that there are big risks in having such an important project susceptible to unforeseen natural disasters, war and the like.

post #3210 of 10454
Capitalism isn't equipped to deal with abundance. Laws of supply and demand break down when we realize that we live on a planet that is swimming in free energy. As my colleagues here have said, the current generation of leaders isn't psychologically equipped to get behind a solution that doesn't make anyone a robber baron.
post #3211 of 10454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

 

Obviously redundancy is the solution, and someone above my pay-grade is capable of coming up with good ideas, it's just a matter of what and at what cost.  The way this was explained to me by my astrophysics professor 6 years or so ago, in order for one of these mega solar plants to generate the kind of power we're talking about, it would have to be enormous (and he was of the mind that it was worth it).  I just remember thinking to myself that that there are big risks in having such an important project susceptible to unforeseen natural disasters, war and the like.



Think of it as the Mordor Doctrine. Instead of leaving Mount Doom totally undefended like Sauron did, you fortify the crap out of that area. That way, you don't have some yahoo do what the Israelis did to the Iraqi nuke sites. Then once you have a couple of these, keep improving them with the next generation of complex. By then, we can have those high powered anti-missile lasers all over the place, and we can use our jetpacks to get to work.

post #3212 of 10454

I wish we'd stop playing the game of trying to "figure out" everything about solar, wind, or what have you, because it's playing right into the hands of the people keeping us stuck in the status quo, who have decided that we apparently can't switch to alternative energies until some impossibly perfect way to implement them comes along.

post #3213 of 10454

  This is just me thinking out loud, but what if Big Oil put the money they spend on disproving global warming, and lobbying, and put it into developing clean energy? They would still have a way to make tons of money. Also the world doesn't go to hell, and they can pass along a successful business and a livable planet to their kids. Just a thought.

post #3214 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

  This is just me thinking out loud, but what if Big Oil put the money they spend on disproving global warming, and lobbying, and put it into developing clean energy? They would still have a way to make tons of money. Also the world doesn't go to hell, and they can pass along a successful business and a livable planet to their kids. Just a thought.


too "long term".....they need their gold yachts and ivory airplanes NOW, not in 10 or 15 years....most of them will be dead in 10-15 years and they could give a shit about the world their children will be living in.

 

post #3215 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones View Post

I wish we'd stop playing the game of trying to "figure out" everything about solar, wind, or what have you, because it's playing right into the hands of the people keeping us stuck in the status quo, who have decided that we apparently can't switch to alternative energies until some impossibly perfect way to implement them comes along.


Oh come on, we all know what everyone's waiting for...

 

The-Red-Skull-Holds-Cosmic-Cube.jpg

 


Edited by The Rain Dog - 3/22/12 at 10:52pm
post #3216 of 10454

VTRan, like I wrote, I was just thinking out loud...and I've been drinking.

post #3217 of 10454

Giant solar arrays would need security and upkeep? Hmm...sounds like we might be able to...I dunno...make jobs?

 

Too crazy? I know, I'll sit down now.

post #3218 of 10454

But its so crazy, it just might work!

post #3219 of 10454

Ahem, back to the election....

 

Rick Santorum sez re-electing Obama is preferable to voting for Romney!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-suggests-electing-obama-better-romney-presidency-211531760.html

post #3220 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

  This is just me thinking out loud, but what if Big Oil put the money they spend on disproving global warming, and lobbying, and put it into developing clean energy? They would still have a way to make tons of money. Also the world doesn't go to hell, and they can pass along a successful business and a livable planet to their kids. Just a thought.



I'm pretty sure Big Oil is also among the biggest contributors to alternative energy exploration, simply because they're going to want to continue their iron-fisted grasp on the next major energy source(s) as well.

 

In fact, while I usually don't advocate conspiracy theories, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's already basically been decided what the next major energy source will be, and Big Oil is just going to milk every dime they can out of the rest of humanity before they "allow" that technology to filter into common usage.

post #3221 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post

I'm pretty sure Big Oil is also among the biggest contributors to alternative energy exploration, simply because they're going to want to continue their iron-fisted grasp on the next major energy source(s) as well.

mr_burns.png

"...and rule you like a king!"

post #3222 of 10454

http://now.msn.com/now/0322-romney-vs-birthers.aspx#scptm2

 

 

 

Quote:
No, you read that right. You might think birthers are crazy conspiracy theorists, but you can't say they're inconsistent. The fringe group of politicians and concerned voters who have long dogged President Obama for "proof" that he is a natural born citizen are now targeting Mitt Romney. They demand that the California Secretary of State produce evidence that Mitt is eligible to run for president. One birther explains that Romney's citizenship is up for debate because his dad was born in Mexico. Thats right, Mitt Romney's father was born in the Mexican colony that Mitt's great-grandfather founded after fleeing the United States so he could stay married to Romney's four great-grandmothers. Let's all just let that sink in for a moment.

Gotta get Sheriff Joe on this.

post #3223 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Ahem, back to the election....

 

Rick Santorum sez re-electing Obama is preferable to voting for Romney!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-suggests-electing-obama-better-romney-presidency-211531760.html


Oh God, so awesome. Thank you, Ricky. This is why I don't understand Democrats who get mad at this guy. He's doing nothing but making sure the right will lose big next election. He's sewing up the presidency, now I'm hoping it trickles down to the Senate and Congressional races too. I want wall-to-wall hippies in the legislative branch. And Ricky can help make it happen.

 

In all seriousness, his comment about there being little difference between Romney and Obama is...dare I say it...actually pretty insightful?

 

post #3224 of 10454

Credit where it's due.  Romney's been paying a team of experts millions upon millions of dollars for months now to do everything possible to make him seem indistinguishable from any other given politician.

post #3225 of 10454
There's an intersection between politics and semantics that fascinates me in the Etch-A-Sketch flap. Santorum can't say that Romney doesn't sincerely believe in anything but his own ambition, because that would run the risk of making Romney look attractive to the sociopath Randroid libertarian voter, along with every hillbilly with a dream of turning into J.R. Ewing once their Powerball retirement plan works out. Then Romney's campaign team goes and hands Santorum a safer, more diminishing, more infantilizing way of saying precisely the same thing.

Given the quality of results Romney's campaign staff have produced over the last year, it's amazing to me that they still have jobs. Do some of these people have dirt on Mitt, or what?
post #3226 of 10454

So with the likely hood that this GOP primary battle is most likely over I was starting to think of who "Mr Etch-A-Sketch" Mitt Romney will pick as his "Veep" pick. Especially after his aid gave the gaffes of all gaffes of this political race I feel it has to be someone extremely conservative to convince the base to vote for a moderate to liberal Massachusetts  Mormon for president. I have five picks in my mind that would achieve that although all five make me sick to my stomach.

 

(1 Former Sen. Rick Santorum- This one is relatively logical. For one he is his chief rival and has gotten a bit of the delegates in this race and has shown an ability to win the south and average everyday blue collar voters. Also he is synonymous with the culture war which the GOP is all about now, and to the base he is extremely likable and belongs to religion they see as legit. the cons is he seems to despise Romney (even worse than with Gore with Clinton, Johnson with Kennedy and Bush with Reagan) and on issues with the economy or foreign policy he is horrid and pathetic.

 

(2 Gov. Bob McDonnell-This looked way better a couple of months. He's from a battleground state which could  have really helped the GOP take the election. But the whole trans-vaginal ultrasound really sank him and has become a total joke of a candidate now and utterly laughable, especially after being eviscerated in an interview by Gov. O'Malley just think of what Biden would do to him. Also he has very little experience in much of everything other than conservative "Family Values". Honestly in the lower picks in my opinion.

 

(3 Gov Jan Brewer-uggh so is actually in the top three because one is a woman, two is from a state that has some of the most conservative opinions of any state that some will claim as strong with social values and security and they'll try to publicize the picture of her with Obama as standing up against him. Though having heard her talk she seems so dumb (not the level of dumb of O'Donnell, Palin or Bachmann, but still bad) and not really that charismatic at all, although being just a woman could get on her the ticket as the right is getting huge flack on the whole "War on Woman" issue

 

(4 Sen Marco Rubio-One of the "young superstars" of the GOP. Really apart from defeating Charlie Crist and being Hispanic not much could be said by him. From my knowledge he's contributed nothing of substance apart from co-sponsoring an amendent to a transportation bill that tried to dent women contraception rights, under the flag of "religious freedom" that failed. Like that had something or anything to do with transportation at all. Other than that what could you say seems like a rather weak pick like the cynical pick of Sarah Palin.

 

(5 Congressman Paul Ryan-the most logical pick in my opinion and one that most sickens me honestly. Now Ryan is seen as the "budget whiz kid" and if the talk of the election becomes the debt he makes alot of sense, although his "budget plan" is so awful it would ruin the middle class killing both medicare and medicaid, while benefiting just the top of the upper class. But that's the GOP's point anyway right and it would stress the whole corporate model Romney's stressing by having Ryan as his number crunching wing man. Also he is pretty conservative and one of those Tea party weirdos and his state of Wisconsin is in play this November which would vastly help in the election. Also since they see him as the future, probably more than anyone else on this list it makes alot of sense to give him exposure to build him up like they did with Nixon and Bush. 

 

 

post #3227 of 10454

Santorum got another vote of confidence from the conservative base:  he's won Louisiana.

post #3228 of 10454

 When my alarm went off this morning, it was the religious Sunday morning show. The host was talking about how unfair it is for Obama to force the Catholic Church to pay for birth control* and to attack Romney for Bain Capital. First off I'm sick of the Obama is attacking religious freedom argument. We all know the plan makes insurance companies to cover it, and I don't know where an organization that protects child molesters gets off talking about morality. Romney is running on the idea that running Bain makes him more qualified on the economy than Obama. Since Bain shipped jobs overseas, we all know that is bullshit! At least being kinda of annoyed woke me up.

 

*The host actual called it abortion medicine. If someone uses birth control they won't need an abortion.

post #3229 of 10454

romney say anything.jpg

post #3230 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

So with the likely hood that this GOP primary battle is most likely over I was starting to think of who "Mr Etch-A-Sketch" Mitt Romney will pick as his "Veep" pick. Especially after his aid gave the gaffes of all gaffes of this political race I feel it has to be someone extremely conservative to convince the base to vote for a moderate to liberal Massachusetts  Mormon for president. I have five picks in my mind that would achieve that although all five make me sick to my stomach.

 

(1 Former Sen. Rick Santorum- This one is relatively logical. For one he is his chief rival and has gotten a bit of the delegates in this race and has shown an ability to win the south and average everyday blue collar voters. Also he is synonymous with the culture war which the GOP is all about now, and to the base he is extremely likable and belongs to religion they see as legit. the cons is he seems to despise Romney (even worse than with Gore with Clinton, Johnson with Kennedy and Bush with Reagan) and on issues with the economy or foreign policy he is horrid and pathetic.

 

(2 Gov. Bob McDonnell-This looked way better a couple of months. He's from a battleground state which could  have really helped the GOP take the election. But the whole trans-vaginal ultrasound really sank him and has become a total joke of a candidate now and utterly laughable, especially after being eviscerated in an interview by Gov. O'Malley just think of what Biden would do to him. Also he has very little experience in much of everything other than conservative "Family Values". Honestly in the lower picks in my opinion.

 

(3 Gov Jan Brewer-uggh so is actually in the top three because one is a woman, two is from a state that has some of the most conservative opinions of any state that some will claim as strong with social values and security and they'll try to publicize the picture of her with Obama as standing up against him. Though having heard her talk she seems so dumb (not the level of dumb of O'Donnell, Palin or Bachmann, but still bad) and not really that charismatic at all, although being just a woman could get on her the ticket as the right is getting huge flack on the whole "War on Woman" issue

 

(4 Sen Marco Rubio-One of the "young superstars" of the GOP. Really apart from defeating Charlie Crist and being Hispanic not much could be said by him. From my knowledge he's contributed nothing of substance apart from co-sponsoring an amendent to a transportation bill that tried to dent women contraception rights, under the flag of "religious freedom" that failed. Like that had something or anything to do with transportation at all. Other than that what could you say seems like a rather weak pick like the cynical pick of Sarah Palin.

 

(5 Congressman Paul Ryan-the most logical pick in my opinion and one that most sickens me honestly. Now Ryan is seen as the "budget whiz kid" and if the talk of the election becomes the debt he makes alot of sense, although his "budget plan" is so awful it would ruin the middle class killing both medicare and medicaid, while benefiting just the top of the upper class. But that's the GOP's point anyway right and it would stress the whole corporate model Romney's stressing by having Ryan as his number crunching wing man. Also he is pretty conservative and one of those Tea party weirdos and his state of Wisconsin is in play this November which would vastly help in the election. Also since they see him as the future, probably more than anyone else on this list it makes alot of sense to give him exposure to build him up like they did with Nixon and Bush. 

 

 




Great analysis but I think that brings to light a very salient issue.   Are there any Republican leaders or stars of the party that aren't titanic assholes or horrible human beings?    It just seems that they are high functioning sociopaths or people who are just hateful.   I'm sure there's a number of them that are good folks (like George W Bush who politics aside seemed like an okay guy) but it feels like the GOP has become the party of assholes.

 

 

post #3231 of 10454

I guess I'm in a mood after Newt Gingrich's comments about Trayver Martin and making it into a wedge issue.....

 

 

Quote:

 

What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.

 

Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what Obama meant by those words.   Asshole.

post #3232 of 10454

This brought a smile to my face. Sadly the tool who did the ambush interview has removed the video.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/reporter-conducts-gotcha-interview-with-bono-impersonator-20120321

post #3233 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

This brought a smile to my face. Sadly the tool who did the ambush interview has removed the video.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/reporter-conducts-gotcha-interview-with-bono-impersonator-20120321

nothing is ever 'gone' on the internet.... :)
 

post #3234 of 10454

Thanks for finding that VTran.  My favorite part of the interview was:"You don't have a say in U2?" "Not particularly." Mattera truly is the bad boy of journalism. In the sense that he is bad at journalism.


Edited by Chaz - 3/25/12 at 1:46pm
post #3235 of 10454

ha, what a fucking tool.

post #3236 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

Thanks for finding that VTran.  My favorite part of the interview was:"You don't have a say in U2?" "Not particularly." Mattera truly is the bad boy of journalism. In the sense he is bad at journalism.


I enjoy the fact that "Bono" lets the guy keep rambling on and never stops him and says "dude, you do know I'm a Bono impersonator, right?"

 

post #3237 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post




Great analysis but I think that brings to light a very salient issue.   Are there any Republican leaders or stars of the party that aren't titanic assholes or horrible human beings?    It just seems that they are high functioning sociopaths or people who are just hateful.   I'm sure there's a number of them that are good folks (like George W Bush who politics aside seemed like an okay guy) but it feels like the GOP has become the party of assholes.

 

 


That's a real good point likable folks in the GOP is really rare. The best person I listed was Paul Ryan, who isn't totally evil, although I utterly detest his economic plan, which awful since it kills Medicare and Medicaid and dosen't cut the defecit and actually makes it worse, but I could tolerate him, the others not so much.

Other than that only ones I could see being good alternatives would be Mitch Daniels or Haley Barbour. But both have problems too, Daniels was the Bush economic advisor and has the personality of a sea sponge and Barbour's mass Clemancys could be an issue, but the more I think about the better he seems he's rather sensible and likable, but the neo-fascist theological wingnuts might not take to him but it might give Romney a better chance in the bellweather southern states of North Carolina, Virginia or Tennessee.
post #3238 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post


That's a real good point likable folks in the GOP is really rare. The best person I listed was Paul Ryan, who isn't totally evil, although I utterly detest his economic plan, which awful since it kills Medicare and Medicaid and dosen't cut the defecit and actually makes it worse, but I could tolerate him, the others not so much.
Other than that only ones I could see being good alternatives would be Mitch Daniels or Haley Barbour. But both have problems too, Daniels was the Bush economic advisor and has the personality of a sea sponge and Barbour's mass Clemancys could be an issue, but the more I think about the better he seems he's rather sensible and likable, but the neo-fascist theological wingnuts might not take to him but it might give Romney a better chance in the bellweather southern states of North Carolina, Virginia or Tennessee.


Barbour is just another pro-life, climate change denier, big tobacco GOP lobbyist douchebag-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Barbour

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haley_Barbour

 

Paul Ryan is nothing more than a 'presentable', slightly less smug, Grover Norquist - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan

 

Mitch Daniels is an ALEC lackey and has tried to restrict workers rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels

 

I'll go one step further than DynamoTV and  say that a good 95% of the GOP/RNC have been complete idiotic assholes and have been for several decades, the american public just wasn't aware of it. (thanks internet !?)

 

Not to say there aren't idiotic, assholish Dems....there are for sure, but the numbers pale in comparison to the modern day 'conservative' politician.

post #3239 of 10454
All that is very true. I was just thinking of people that would help out Mitt with all his weaknesses all those named do that and I agree they all suck badly, but who is white knight, the paragon of virtue the future of the party. None of these picks are that at all and I doubt they exist.

The sad thing I can easily come up with Dems to replace Biden as VP but it took hours to come up with the GOP ones and they all basically suck!
post #3240 of 10454

I will always like Biden for saying this about Giuliani, "All he has to say is a noun, a verb and 9/11."

post #3241 of 10454
post #3242 of 10454

Rick Santorum's new "Obamaville" ad

 

 

Completely nuts.

post #3243 of 10454

Weren't they saying this stuff in '08?    "Just you wait.   In two years, Obama is going to bring America to its knees and we'll all be fucked"   Now it's "Obama is just waiting until he no longer has to worry about elections to unleash the really scary shit we told you about 4 years ago."   In 4 years it will be " Obama just wanted to make people think it's safe to elect a Democrat because the real threat to our country is (the Democratic Nominee)"

 

Sometimes I wish Obama was just as bad as the GOP makes him out to be.

post #3244 of 10454

A couple of tweets from Mightygodking.com'  Chris Bird:

 

"HOW TO RUIN GAME OF THRONES: Imagine Mitt Romney as Stannis and Rick Santorum as Renly. "Nobody wants you for their candidate, brother!""

 

"Although that does give the amusing subtext of Santorum being secretly gay for Loras Tyrell, who in this context is, I dunno, Rick Perry?"

 

There follows a discussion mapping the GOP candidates onto the GoT characters. I like Newt for Joffrey, Ron Paul for Balon Greyjoy, Grover Norquist for Walder Frey, Sarah Palin for Cersei, and Rush as...I dunno, Janos Slynt?

 

post #3245 of 10454

Santorum snaps at a reporter and says a naughty word on camera!

 

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/santorum-swears-at-new-york-times-reporter

 

The video still is priceless.

post #3246 of 10454

You know, I really didn't need that mental image of Rick Perry shaving Santorum's chest and pit hair, fuckyouverymuchChrisBird.

post #3247 of 10454

Guy's ready to snap!

 

Was the reporter chewing gum?  

post #3248 of 10454

I sometimes think of people's tempers being a little like this:

 

Short temper/smaller intelligence

220px-Degaen.jpg

 

-Perpetually frightened of everything

-Barks at anything

 

Cool temper/larger intelligence

types-of-big-dogs3.jpg

 

-Ain't afraid of shit

 

In the case of Santorum (and Bill O'Reilly with his famous meltdown), I think the metaphor is accurate.

post #3249 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Barbour is just another pro-life, climate change denier, big tobacco GOP lobbyist douchebag-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Barbour

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haley_Barbour

 

Paul Ryan is nothing more than a 'presentable', slightly less smug, Grover Norquist - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan

 

Mitch Daniels is an ALEC lackey and has tried to restrict workers rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels

 

I'll go one step further than DynamoTV and  say that a good 95% of the GOP/RNC have been complete idiotic assholes and have been for several decades, the american public just wasn't aware of it. (thanks internet !?)

 

Not to say there aren't idiotic, assholish Dems....there are for sure, but the numbers pale in comparison to the modern day 'conservative' politician.


FDR once said something to the effect of "Rule by organized money is just as dangerous as rule by organized mob."  The GOP's oriented around big money interests, and advocating and legislating to the needs of that elite minority seems like insanity to the general public, so they have to find marketing slogans and high concept framing to make it palatable to the "true believers" they use as a human shield.  If the "base" had an unvarnished view of what the GOP was really for without the vaseline-smeared lens of the propaganda they've been submerged in, I think they'd be disgusted and horrified because unless you're a millionaire, it is insanity.   

post #3250 of 10454

Apparently Herman Cain's whatever posted a new anti-stimulus video, this time with a bunny as the victim.  It's was pulled from youtube almost instantly.

 

With Cheney getting a new heart yesterday, it feels like we've veered into the darkest timeline for a bit.  I even put a washaway blue-streak in my hair : (

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread