Quote:

Originally Posted by Reasor 
 Even conspiracy theories that the government saw Pearl Harbor or 9/11 coming, and did nothing to prevent them, don't go that far.

oh, yeah they do....there are plenty of 9/11 conspiracy nuts out there that are totally convinced that it was aa modern day "Operation Northwoods"

never underestimate some people's capacity for crazy

The Maine and Gulf of Tonkin incidents are much more widely believed to be false flag acts than the Pearl Harbor or 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It's not too unusual for the vetting and selection process to still be going on at this point in the campaign, or for the presumed nominee's choice to still be unannounced.  Obama didn't announce Biden until August 22nd during the 2008 campaign; Palin followed on the 29th.  I'm guessing Romney's choice will be made within the next three weeks.

Yeah, VP generally gets announced right before the convention, so they (presumably) will be riding high off of the (usually temporary) poll bump such an announcement (usually) brings.

But team Romney totally put the money and effort into making an app specifically to alert people to Mitten's VP pick:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/romney-campaign-to-announce-vp-through-mitts-vp-app

That's how you create jobs people!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunwukong 

I haven't been paying attention lately due to work and unrelated evil up here -- but there's STILL no VP candidate for Romney? What are they waiting for, Zombie Jebus?

Perhaps...the real reason Romney went to the middle east???

I thought I saw Romney's fingers crossed when  he got off the plane.

:)

Despite the current polls, and despite Romney's incredible lack of charisma, normal human emotions, or connection with the middle class, I still see him winning.

He has demonstrated a complete willingness to bend over for an business interest, and that money will get him the victory.  After that, everything gets deregulated, strip-mined, clear-cut, and wrung out dry.

I understand not calling it for Obama quite yet, but come on, BananaGrabber, let's tone down the Chicken Little just a hair, shall we?

Romney's hardly liked by a large swath of the base, much like Kerry was for the Democrats in 2004. I can see more the GOP holding its nose and considering it more a vote against Obama than a vote for Romney. And that kind of dispersion doesn't make for a convincing, winning narrative that really sells these campaigns--especially with the continued driving away of moderates and centrists from the right, which you can bet your ass is one of the big factors that cost McCain in 2008. Obama's had Romney on a hard defense, with Romney hardly mustering a feeble offense so far. Obamacare got passed, the economy is, time and again, getting pointed at Republicans in Congress for being horribly inactive and ineffective, and then Romney just blew his whole world tour with gaffe after gaffe, at a time when the regular Joe is actually paying attention to world news.

Romney's got all that corporate money, but we've heard all this handwringing about buying elections and corporate shadow company funding and rigged machines before. Obama still got in. He can do it again.

I feel that the real turning point of this election will be the debates between Obama and Romney.
Unless the debates are completely scripted affairs, I can't see Romney doing well at all. He lacks any sort of spontaneity in his public speaking which I feel will really hurt him in the debates.

While some think that Obama's speaking style could be considered slow, he actually seems to be digesting the questions and chooses is words with a level of intellectualism that has been sorely missing from politics.   

I heard Romney speaking today on CNN and the one thing that kept running through my mind was if Sarah Palin and Dubya had a kid, he'd be Romney.

He has no charisma....NONE. He was just feeding the audience a bunch of Fox talking points. It might have been me but the Romney's audience today seemed to be a little hesitant in responding to his statements...almost like everyone was looking around to see if they should clap now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

I feel that the real turning point of this election will be the debates between Obama and Romney.
Unless the debates are completely scripted affairs, I can't see Romney doing well at all. He lacks any sort of spontaneity in his public speaking which I feel will really hurt him in the debates.

While some think that Obama's speaking style could be considered slow, he actually seems to be digesting the questions and chooses is words with a level of intellectualism that has been sorely missing from politics.   

 

I heard Romney speaking today on CNN and the one thing that kept running through my mind was if Sarah Palin and Dubya had a kid, he'd be Romney.

He has no charisma....NONE. He was just feeding the audience a bunch of Fox talking points. It might have been me but the Romney's audience today seemed to be a little hesitant in responding to his statements...almost like everyone was looking around to see if they should clap now.

I think there will be a lot of people who will call Obama arrogant if he trounces Romney in the debates; in the 2000 election there were people polled who said Gore being "too intellectual" was a negative.

The people who would find Obama arrogant for flaunting his intellect are more than likely the people who already hate him for being a member of the elite. And Obama's a WAY better debater than Gore ever was. He knows how and when to go for the body punches, and when to swing the left hook for sound bites and applause. He's got that double combo of being smart AND energetic. Romney's got an almost total inability to say anything he wasn't coached on before he takes a podium, and has the personality of Robby the Robot. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

The people who would find Obama arrogant for flaunting his intellect are more than likely the people who already hate him for being a member of the Negro. 

Fixed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

......and has the personality of Robby the Robot. 

hey hey hey.............don't go disparaging Robby the Robot

Robby the Robot is fucking Johnny Carson compared to Romney

I'm going to say it will be right before the Republican Convention so they have a first crack at defining the VP candidate before the media can get their hands on him (and it will be a guy).

It's still very likely that Romney will go with a woman.  It's been reported that several were at least considered in the initial vetting stages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

It's still very likely that Romney will go with a woman.  It's been reported that several were at least considered in the initial vetting stages.

ROMNEY MUST FEED!

ETA: I talked to somebody the other day who was very confident that once the debates happen, Obama will wipe the floor with Romney, that when he is challenged or at a disadvantage, he can go for the jugular (in his way).  I really hope that person is right, and I hope it makes a difference. I too am fearful of the tsunami of negative "independent" ads coming down on his head in November. 

I got my new PA drivers license this week; so I'm good when they ask for ID when I vote. Obama is leading in PA, but the state does have voter ID laws, so I am worried about that.

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "I don't see color. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because I'm allowed to vote."

Google "veteran turned away at polls" or different variations of seniors trying to vote and you see how much these horrible voter disenfranchisement laws affect them.  A lot of really elderly people have no ID and will have trouble getting one in time for the election.  Of course it's aimed at minorities and students too.  The whole thing is sickness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

ETA: I talked to somebody the other day who was very confident that once the debates happen, Obama will wipe the floor with Romney, that when he is challenged or at a disadvantage, he can go for the jugular (in his way).  I really hope that person is right, and I hope it makes a difference.

This is what I'm encouraged about, as far as the debates go: Mitt Romney is COMPLETELY unable to reign in the most condescending aspects of his personality. That's been proven time and time again (like, er, last week). He's had years to become better at it and just won't. This will lead to plenty of awful moments for him. He was able to coast through the GOP debates because his opponents were lame and (R)s love an asshole. But his tricks won't work against Obama. Mitt, please please PLEASE pull that "I'm not done talking!" crap on the President. Pretty please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

In addition to the debates, I get the feeling the convention might hurt him as well. During the past 4 years, the grown ups have been kicked out and replaced with assholes and frat boys. I won't be surprised if this convention has the same effect on independents as the 92 coming out party of the religious right.

From your lips to God's ears.

I just have a really dim view of humanity this year.  I see so many anti-obama stickers around town, and there's so much not even thinly-veiled racism going around.

My pessimism will not be contained!  

Retired porn star Jenna Jameson supports Mitt Romney

Retired adult film actress Jenna Jameson voiced support for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at a strip club Thursday, CBS San Francisco reports:

 

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

Jameson was being interviewed "exclusively" by a CBS reporter who was "on assignment" at "an event marking the 8th anniversary" of the San Francisco-area strip club.

Jameson isn't the first in the business to praise Romney: Ron Jeremy recently called Romney "a good man" and "such an amazing father." In an interview with Yahoo News earlier this year, gay porn titan Michael Lucas said he would "of course" support the former Massachusetts governor.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/retired-porn-star-jenna-jameson-says-she-supports-143703925.html?_esi=1

To be fair, at least she's honest about the motivation.

Porn stars and Mormons.

Harry Callahan is officially a grumpy old man....

Clint Eastwood Endorsing Romney's Presidential Bid

now watch as Romney and Fox News run this story into the ground....

He hopes Romney will do this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

Harry Callahan is officially a grumpy old man....

 

Clint Eastwood Endorsing Romney's Presidential Bid

 

 

now watch as Romney and Fox News run this story into the ground....

Wow that's interesting.....Eastwood has always held his politics close to the vest. Is this the first time he's endorsed a Presidential candidate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Shaver 

Retired porn star Jenna Jameson supports Mitt Romney

 

Retired adult film actress Jenna Jameson voiced support for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at a strip club Thursday, CBS San Francisco reports:

 

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

 

Jameson was being interviewed "exclusively" by a CBS reporter who was "on assignment" at "an event marking the 8th anniversary" of the San Francisco-area strip club.

 

Jameson isn't the first in the business to praise Romney: Ron Jeremy recently called Romney "a good man" and "such an amazing father." In an interview with Yahoo News earlier this year, gay porn titan Michael Lucas said he would "of course" support the former Massachusetts governor.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/retired-porn-star-jenna-jameson-says-she-supports-143703925.html?_esi=1

 Since I only watch 70s porn*, I will wait until the cast of Debbie Does Dallas makes their endorsement to decide who I vote for.

* Cause back the industry had class.

He endorsed McCain, a lifelong friend, in 2008.

Eastwood is a bit strange politically, but he's almost consistently supported Republican presidential campaigns.  He's supported some Democrats before (including Gray Davis), is environmentally conscious, has politically liberal social views (supports abortion rights, same-sex marriage, etc), generally seems to oppose most of the United States' war efforts (or at least is wary of militarism), etc.  He's called himself "not a conservative" at times, and "moderate" or "libertarian" during others.

Eastwood supporting Romney really disappoints me. There is nothing in Romney for an old-school conservative like Eastwood to admire. I don't get it.
 

Yeah, McCain seems more like the sort of Republican Eastwood would support.  He may have a somewhat hardline attitude to foreign policy but he's got his head screwed on domestically and doesn't support the 'win at any cost, fuck the country' attitude of modern republicans. (See last August and the debt ceiling).  And apart from a brief spell before the '08 elections he doesn't twist the facts or cherry pick data.

I wonder if Eastwood's support of McCain was more a personal friendship thing than political (although I'm sure it's that as well).

As for his comments that Romney could "get things going again" and that we need a "fair tax system": I don't see Mittens full filling either hope.

I will say that the biggest disappointment for me in the Obama first term is that he really hasn't done much with the bully pulpit like I expected him to. I think Eastwood might be having nostalgia for Reagan and "Morning in America" and I share that. A lot of people fucking hated Reagan but he was able to inspire a lot of other people to have confidence in themselves and their country. One might argue whether people should really need a President to supply them with optimism, but it's a fact that Reagan and Clinton could do it; Obama has not.

While McCain may have been the 'noble' politician at one time, these days he's nothing more than a political wind sock.

During his presidential campaign against Obama, he had the opportunity to stand up and call out all the tea partiers on their birther bullshit but he didn't.  There was the one incident where he weakly refuted that crazy old "Obama is a muslim" lady but instead of using that as chance to stand up and call-out the nutjobs, he just kind of shyly said "no, no he's not". He did this because he was more than willing to accept those 'crazy' votes if it got him ahead.

McCain may still have some good qualities but they are buried so deep as to be useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I will say that the biggest disappointment for me in the Obama first term is that he really hasn't done much with the bully pulpit like I expected him to. I think Eastwood might be having nostalgia for Reagan and "Morning in America" and I share that. A lot of people fucking hated Reagan but he was able to inspire a lot of other people to have confidence in themselves and their country. One might argue whether people should really need a President to supply them with optimism, but it's a fact that Reagan and Clinton could do it; Obama has not.

I get this, but Obama was instilling hope in people all through 2008, and as soon as he got into office he settled down to deal with an abusive opposition and a completely tanked economy. Had he spent as much time on flowery oration since taking office as he did during his election the Republicans would have a field day over lack of substance/masking evil policy with sugarcoated speeches/him being a rockstar president/BLACK MAN USING BIG WORDS or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I will say that the biggest disappointment for me in the Obama first term is that he really hasn't done much with the bully pulpit like I expected him to. I think Eastwood might be having nostalgia for Reagan and "Morning in America" and I share that. A lot of people fucking hated Reagan but he was able to inspire a lot of other people to have confidence in themselves and their country. One might argue whether people should really need a President to supply them with optimism, but it's a fact that Reagan and Clinton could do it; Obama has not.

fuck, Reagan. His presidency and the politicians surrounding him laid the foundations for the modern GOP and their fucking up of the US.  

You say "inspire", I say fill with a level of hubris that spawned a  generation of assholes that aspired to be 'Gordon Gekko'.

Confidence is one thing, but it has to be tempered with humility and empathy.

While on the surface, Reagan and the media may have projected that 'caring father' vision, underneath he could give a fuck and wouldn't have a problem leaving the 'unwanted' aspects of US in a dumpster.

Reagan was fucking awful. I've been saying this for a while now. The GOP has basically been an unbroken Reagan administration since the 80s. Everything you bitched about with Dubya evolved directly from the Reagan years. Including a lot of the same people in power.

His reputation for "greatness" comes entirely from being a very successful politician, not from actually doing anything to help the country. He did very little to end the cold war, despite getting all the credit; he started the ludicrous buildup of military spending that continues to this day; he funded Osama bin Laden (yes, he fucking did, don't give me this shit about how his administration carefully vetted religious lunatics or whatever); he put the brakes on a burgeoning movement towards alternative energy sources and environmentalism; he sat back callously during the AIDS crisis; he began the vicious cycle of undermining the government so as to claim that the government is incompetent and using that "proof" to undermine it further; he thought ketchup was a vegetable.

Fuck Reagan indeed.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Reagan was fucking awful. I've been saying this for a while now. The GOP has basically been an unbroken Reagan administration since the 80s. Everything you bitched about with Dubya intelligent designed directly from the Reagan years.

 

Fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Reagan was fucking awful. I've been saying this for a while now. The GOP has basically been an unbroken Reagan administration since the 80s. Everything you bitched about with Dubya evolved directly from the Reagan years. Including a lot of the same people in power.

 

His reputation for "greatness" comes entirely from being a very successful politician, not from actually doing anything to help the country. He did very little to end the cold war, despite getting all the credit; he started the ludicrous buildup of military spending that continues to this day; he funded Osama bin Laden (yes, he fucking did, don't give me this shit about how his administration carefully vetted religious lunatics or whatever); he put the brakes on a burgeoning movement towards alternative energy sources and environmentalism; he sat back callously during the AIDS crisis; he began the vicious cycle of undermining the government so as to claim that the government is incompetent and using that "proof" to undermine it further; he thought ketchup was a vegetable.

 

Fuck Reagan indeed.
 

And yet, he's now considered "too moderate" for the current GOP.  Despair on that for awhile.  

James Buchanan > Ronald Reagan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

fuck, Reagan. His presidency and the politicians surrounding him laid the foundations for the modern GOP and their fucking up of the US.  

 

You say "inspire", I say fill with a level of hubris that spawned a  generation of assholes that aspired to be 'Gordon Gekko'.

 

Confidence is one thing, but it has to be tempered with humility and empathy.

While on the surface, Reagan and the media may have projected that 'caring father' vision, underneath he could give a fuck and wouldn't have a problem leaving the 'unwanted' aspects of US in a dumpster.

Well that's a broad brush to paint an entire generation with. Yeah a lot of assholes wanted to be Gordon Gekko (so, should we blame Reagan for that or Oliver Stone haha), but just as many went on to found companies, build real businesses, etc.

To be clear, I'm saying that Reagan (and Clinton) did successfully paint a vision; what they thought behind closed doors is not relevant. (to my previous post at least).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Reagan was fucking awful. I've been saying this for a while now. The GOP has basically been an unbroken Reagan administration since the 80s. Everything you bitched about with Dubya evolved directly from the Reagan years. Including a lot of the same people in power.

 

His reputation for "greatness" comes entirely from being a very successful politician, not from actually doing anything to help the country. He did very little to end the cold war, despite getting all the credit; he started the ludicrous buildup of military spending that continues to this day; he funded Osama bin Laden (yes, he fucking did, don't give me this shit about how his administration carefully vetted religious lunatics or whatever); he put the brakes on a burgeoning movement towards alternative energy sources and environmentalism; he sat back callously during the AIDS crisis; he began the vicious cycle of undermining the government so as to claim that the government is incompetent and using that "proof" to undermine it further; he thought ketchup was a vegetable.

 

Fuck Reagan indeed.
 

Reagan invaded a tiny Carribean island, bombed Libya once, shelled Terrorist enclaves in Lebanon (via WWII Battleships!); that is a far cry for invading and occupying Iraq for 10 years; plus invading and occupying Afghanistan for the same amount of time.

The military buildup was specific to Reagan's policies re: the Soviet Union. Once the USSR disappeared, there was no need for the military buildup (yeah I know that's speculative, but it's  based on Reagan's statements over many years).

I don't know who you think is denying that the US government funded bin Laden; I'd say that at that time, the imperative was stopping the Soviets from expanding their empire to the Indian Ocean and threatening the Middle East Directly. Don't think Reagan was handing bin Laden gold bars personally.

What I'm saying is, Reagan did show a sense of restraint and humility: he knew how to pick his battles. George W Bush had no sense of caution whatsoever.

The other stuff; yeah, black marks on his presidency.

This made me laugh, linked due to gifs:

http://a-cumberbatch-of-cookies.tumblr.com/post/28552797368/o-m-g

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

 

Well that's a broad brush to paint an entire generation with. Yeah a lot of assholes wanted to be Gordon Gekko (so, should we blame Reagan for that or Oliver Stone haha), but just as many went on to found companies, build real businesses, etc.

 

To be clear, I'm saying that Reagan (and Clinton) did successfully paint a vision; what they thought behind closed doors is not relevant. (to my previous post at least).

If Reagan (and his ideology) hadn't been president, I don't think Stone would have been inspired to make "Wall Street", so....

While there are some 'legitimate' businesses that were created during the Reagan era, these smaller companies probably can't be held directly responsible for the unrelenting greed that infected the US under the Reagan administration.

Gekko's speech from 'Wall Street' (they really should have gone with the working title: "Greed")

And to be clear, Clinton is on my shit list as well for repealing 'Glass/Steagall'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

I get this, but Obama was instilling hope in people all through 2008, and as soon as he got into office he settled down to deal with an abusive opposition and a completely tanked economy. Had he spent as much time on flowery oration since taking office as he did during his election the Republicans would have a field day over lack of substance/masking evil policy with sugarcoated speeches/him being a rockstar president/BLACK MAN USING BIG WORDS or whatever.

I get this, but I think Obama is adept at using events as "teaching moments" as the jump off point for speeches (see the Rev Wright fiasco for one example). He could easily have done the same for any number of economic events (and to be fair, his weekly comments are often from factory floors, schools etc. But I'm probably the only one who watches those). And screw the GOP: letting them define the terms of the national conversation was a key strategic mistake IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

If Reagan (and his ideology) hadn't been president, I don't think Stone would have been inspired to make "Wall Street", so....

 

While there are some 'legitimate' businesses that were created during the Reagan era, these smaller companies probably can't be held directly responsible for the unrelenting greed that infected the US under the Reagan administration.

 

Gekko's speech from 'Wall Street' (they really should have gone with the working title: "Greed")

 

And to be clear, Clinton is on my shit list as well for repealing 'Glass/Steagall'

But you are positing that the election of one man somehow created a "Generation Evil" in the US. I don't buy it. I would argue that the 70's disillusioned people on the idea of Government activism, while the social conflicts of the 60's led to a disillusionment with idealism in general. And Jimmy "Genius" Carter didn't help matters with his inept Administration, framing Green Power as a sacrifice that Americans just had to make, and public musings on American decline.

It was those people who elected Reagan and who made Gekko an icon, not the other way around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

But you are positing that the election of one man somehow created a "Generation Evil" in the US. I don't buy it. I would argue that the 70's disillusioned people on the idea of Government activism, while the social conflicts of the 60's led to a disillusionment with idealism in general. And Jimmy "Genius" Carter didn't help matters with his inept Administration, framing Green Power as a sacrifice that Americans just had to make, and public musings on American decline.

 

It was those people who elected Reagan and who made Gekko an icon, not the other way around.

maybe not created, per se, but was more than an enabler and certainly adopted as a figurehead.

The Jimmy Carter admin. may have had it's share of problems but at least, IMO,  he was being honest with American, unlike Reagan and his "we're the best" and "everything is going to be OK if you just listen to me 'American Exceptionalism' bullshit.

One of the first things that Reagan did when he got into the White House was to remove the solar panels that JCarter had installed on the roof....that strikes me as just a dickish thing to do.

Hell, during the McCarthyism of 1940's Reagan turned over names to the FBI of "supposed commies". I know it was a different time, but going along with something like McCarthyism tells me plenty about an individuals personality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

But you are positing that the election of one man somehow created a "Generation Evil" in the US. I don't buy it. I would argue that the 70's disillusioned people on the idea of Government activism, while the social conflicts of the 60's led to a disillusionment with idealism in general. And Jimmy "Genius" Carter didn't help matters with his inept Administration, framing Green Power as a sacrifice that Americans just had to make, and public musings on American decline.

 

It was those people who elected Reagan and who made Gekko an icon, not the other way around.

Jimmy Carter was a saint of a man and ahead of his fucking time.  He lost the election because he had the balls to tell the American people the truth.  America has been in a steady decline since the 1970s, with the Federal Reserve bailing us out by keeping interest rates low to allow for a steady stream of bubbles.  We have the tools to avoid this decline, but we don't like sacrifice.  Thus why Carter's sweater speech was received with utter apoplexy.