T1B

mvscal wrote:The Bain attacks and the "war on women" attacks were complete bullshit

Yeah, legitimate rape. Complete bullshit.

Strike one.

The conversation is way over his head and he senses that but he can't do anything about it other than meltdown and embarass himself even further...if possible.

Screwy seems to be a little.....well.....screwy. I think he needs to get laid.

88 wrote:When did Romney embrace the "legitimate rape" comments?

The "binders full of women" comment, obviously.

~Screw

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Yeah, legitimate rape. Complete bullshit.

Strike one.

Mitt Romney wrote:“As I said yesterday, Todd Akin’s comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country. Today, his fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race.”

Apparently, you don't need an education to be a journalist, 88. As long as you subscribe to the "correct" ideology and can parrot talking points, you're golden.

88 wrote: At the risk of appearing like the board dwarf, LINK?

What you appear to be is a stupid toothless hillbilly with one fat stupid kid and one stupid fat kid that are both poster kids for Roe v Wade.

88 wrote: Are you that stupid? When did Romney embrace the "legitimate rape" comments made by the idiot from Missouri? Again, LINK?

Stop acting like those comments were made in a vacuum. It was Exhibit 1A of a complete and utter repudiation of the modern GOP platform from top down starting with Romney.

Again, which big wins did the GOP come up with?

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote:The Tea Party has no extreme positions that I am aware of.

You mean other than if your not white, conservative, evangelical and well to do, then you can go fuck yourself? That's not extreme?

At the risk of appearing like the board dwarf, LINK?

As the lunatic fringe bit, for better or worse, they'll get the oddballs coming over to their side. I'm not saying its core members were lunatics. But as in-vogue 'ism', it centralised all the creepy wankers that used to be spread round a bit more, like the Occupy movement.

Screw_Michigan wrote:a complete and utter repudiation of the modern GOP platform from top down starting with Romney.

How many words that you have no idea of the meaning are you going to use in one day?

You really are one barely-literate fuck.

Dr_Phibes wrote:
As the lunatic fringe bit, for better or worse, they'll get the oddballs coming over to their side. I'm not saying its core members were lunatics. But as in-vogue 'ism', it centralised all the creepy wankers that used to be spread round a bit more, like the Occupy movement.

Bullshit. Name one instance where a "creepy wanker" was centralised. One. In all cases, GOPher extremist have been exposed for who they are.

Truman wrote: Bullshit. Name one instance where a "creepy wanker" was centralised. One.

Papa Willie wrote: 1. As pathetic as it is, the "47%" comment destroyed Romney. The government has brainwashed the public into thinking statements like that mean more than life itself.

No, it was the liberal press, remember? Give me some credit.

88 wrote: What is he in charge of, other than Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)? To my knowledge, he doesn't run any part of the Tea Party, and aside from lobbying the Republican party on behalf of ATR, he doesn't run any part of the Republican Party.

As of late 2011, 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

congressmen are essentially forced to sign on with norquist's plan....they PROMISE norquist not to oppose any increase in marginal tax rates.....who the fuck is grover norquist and why are republican congressmen forced to sign his pledge.....make no mistake, grover norquist is calling the shots.....oppose him and see how far that gets you

Papa Willie wrote:

1. As pathetic as it is, the "47%" comment destroyed Romney. The government has brainwashed the public into thinking statements like that mean more than life itself.

no, it demonstrated that Romney had at least a passing contempt for 47 percent of the population....what kind of asshole alienates almost 5% of the voters in a single swing of the bat....when he stats backtracking from a statement like that, he knows it was the wrong thing too say.....but the reality of it is, is that actually has contempt for those people....what the fuck did he think would happen when he makes moronic statements like that......

I would say that maybe the best thing to do would be to break this country up into two countries. Why not? The D's hate the R's, and the R's hate the D's. Why be forced to live with each other? Think about it - do you really want to live in a country with fucked up lawyers like Moving Sale?

why is it that every time the republicans are soundly trounced, their first reaction is to break the country up, or change the constitution....just accept the fact that americans are simply smarter than the snake oil Romney was peddling.....I don't hate the Republicans, I just wish they'd adopt an attitude of trying to work with the democrats as opposed to stonewalling everything.....

mvscal wrote: The story of the election is that the middle stayed home. The two campaigns left something like 10-13 million votes on the table depending on the final count and 2/3rds of those lost votes were Barry's.

So 2/3rds of the 10-13 million tabled votes were Obarry's yet Mitt would have won if they had all turned up to vote?

...who did an admittedly poor job of articulating his vision. He seemed to think that the facts of the economy are generally known and understood by the public and that they would speak loudly enough on his behalf.

Oh, that's it. No one ever gave him a chance to drone about DEFICIT TAXES DEFICIT NATIONAL DEBT TAXES. If only he could have thrown one more log on that fire.

Oh yes, enjoy your jelly donut: Four more years of economic disaster at home and tragic ineptitude abroad. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Oh, is this another of your political predictions? Then I'll take the over.

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

mvscal wrote:The Bain attacks and the "war on women" attacks were complete bullshit

Yeah, legitimate rape. Complete bullshit.

Strike one.

Are you that stupid? When did Romney embrace the "legitimate rape" comments made by the idiot from Missouri? Again, LINK?

You really don't think the party standard-bearer doesn't suffer from the public perception that the Republican Party's recreational softball team is called Team Rape? Probably shouldn't be endorsing Senate candidates who think rape is a gift from god, either.

mvscal wrote:The Bain attacks and the "war on women" attacks were complete bullshit but they were effective in that they kept moderates who voted for Barry in '08 from embracing Romney who did an admittedly poor job of articulating his vision. He seemed to think that the facts of the economy are generally known and understood by the public and that they would speak loudly enough on his behalf.

One of Romney's top bundlers wrote:We had no message and we gave it to the worst communicator in the world.

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:STFU you stupid racist cunt. You have never been right about anything EVER so of course you were not going to be right about this you pissy Mexican fuck.

So, you cap off your accusations of "racist cunt" by alling a non-Mexican a "Mexican fuck" in a derogatory fashion?

Pretty much sums up your intelligence.

There is a reason the only time I see a Moving Sale post is when someone else quotes him. He is simply the most insufferable tard I've ever read.

"Second, HE is the one that hates Mexicans even though he is one. I was pointing out how stupid he sounds when he drops his racist and bigoted posts, but you are obviously too vapid to understand nuance." --Moving Sale

But according many militant balcks, a balck person cannot be a racist against other balcks. So in the same way, mvscal couldn't be posting racist and bigoted posts against May-hee-cans. Just sayin'.

Papa Willie wrote:I would say that maybe the best thing to do would be to break this country up into two countries. Why not? The D's hate the R's, and the R's hate the D's. Why be forced to live with each other? Think about it - do you really want to live in a country with fucked up lawyers like Moving Sale?

Sure worked out great for you guys the last time. Go ahead and try it.

Seriously, is secession all you confederate traitors ever think about?

Rooster wrote:"Second, HE is the one that hates Mexicans even though he is one. I was pointing out how stupid he sounds when he drops his racist and bigoted posts, but you are obviously too vapid to understand nuance." --Moving Sale

But according many militant balcks, a balck person cannot be a racist against other balcks. So in the same way, mvscal couldn't be posting racist and bigoted posts against May-hee-cans. Just sayin'.

No homies have ever called other homies house mvscals or Uncle Toms.

BSmack wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:STFU you stupid racist cunt. You have never been right about anything EVER so of course you were not going to be right about this you pissy Mexican fuck.

So, you cap off your accusations of "racist cunt" by alling a non-Mexican a "Mexican fuck" in a derogatory fashion?

Pretty much sums up your intelligence.

There is a reason the only time I see a Moving Sale post is when someone else quotes him. He is simply the most insufferable tard I've ever read.

No it's because you have pussy lips where your cock should be you yellow bellied fuckstick.

It's been quite some time since Moving Sale rolled out the kierland troll. Nice to see the little guy return to the board. :roll:

BSmack wrote: There is a reason the only time I see a Moving Sale post is when someone else quotes him.

I read while I'm not logged in -- I see him then, too.

But he's been on "Ignore" forever.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote: There is a reason the only time I see a Moving Sale post is when someone else quotes him.

I read while I'm not logged in -- I see him then, too.

But he's been on "Ignore" forever.

You and bsmack should go tribbing together.

Mace wrote:It's been quite some time since Moving Sale rolled out the kierland troll.

Can Britney's Lips be far behind?

Moving Sale wrote:

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: stop dropping in here to sound like an idiot mmmmkay?

Spoken with inside knowledge and authority.

So I called 88 stupid and your take is that I'm stupid too? Nice post you inbred fuck.

Your comprehension skills are improving. You do know about the pot / kettle thing right ?

You moved to OR via KC I see. Way to double down on stupid you ugly inbred fuck.

mvscal wrote: The Republicans will not win another national election until they cut ties with the Amen Corner.

Correct. Pretty much what we're seeing is the Confederacy has just lost Civil War II. Much like the first Civil War, the Confederacy won the early battles with a better game plan and more passion. However, just like the first Civil War, the Union had the better resources to win over the long haul.

The South dominated CVII early under the leadership of General Reagan. While the Gipper was able to reach out and gain wide support among people of both parties across the country, he also perfected the Atwater strategy and turned the Confederacy into a unified, well-oiled political machine that was agressive and efficient on the national stage. The ass-kickings were so bad that the Union had to enlist their own Southern redneck (Clinton) just to stop the bleeding.

Unlike in the first Civil War, the Confederacy was able to successfully take the war into Union territory, but in the end that may have been part of their undoing. In Oregon, my home state for instance, they marched in and completely crushed and ejected the existing Republican establishment. An establishment that had a long history of successful leadership in the state going back many decades. Left in its place were a bunch of flat-earthers who could not consistently compete for control of the state's electorate and totally turned off the state to the GOP brand. The resulting pushback, occuring on many other "blue" states, has forced the Confederacy to retreat back into the South where they still have the resources (WASP voters) to survive. Now their options are pretty clear: Surrender and ditch "Amen Corner" , or get General Shermaned all the way to the sea.

88 wrote:Much of it is complete bullshit. But rack it nonetheless for creativity and style.

Story of my life.

Truman wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:
As the lunatic fringe bit, for better or worse, they'll get the oddballs coming over to their side. I'm not saying its core members were lunatics. But as in-vogue 'ism', it centralised all the creepy wankers that used to be spread round a bit more, like the Occupy movement.

Bullshit. Name one instance where a "creepy wanker" was centralised. One. In all cases, GOPher extremist have been exposed for who they are.

:?

I suppose this is where the old adage “know your audience” kicks in...

I'll give you another shot at it.

Your musings appear to be intelligently (if archaically) written, Phibes, though their bent routinely reads like a zampolit recruitment pamphlet without the enthusiasm.

Still, I’d like to believe that you can work out the difference between liberal meme and plain-spoken reality without an MSNBC primer.

Other than by those that subscribe to pre-wall-collapse Soviet doctrine, people that advocate strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit are not widely regarded to be “centralised creepy wankers”.

Or is that phrase Canadian for “American patriots”? Try again.

Until the "American Patriots" tell the neo-cons and thumpers to go fuck themselves, you will end up on the bottom of the sea with the whole lot of "wankers". Shit Romney selling his soul to the neo-cons and the end result shoulda told you out front.

H4ever wrote:Shit Romney selling his soul to the neo-cons...

Except, that didn't happen.

I don't think your use of the word "neo-con" means what you think it means, H...

So any semblance of morality or tolerance of (non-Muslim) faith no longer has any place in America?

Good to know.

Did it ever occur to you, H, that maybe folks like you are the problem with this country?

Truman wrote: Other than by those that subscribe to pre-wall-collapse Soviet doctrine, people that advocate strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit are not widely regarded to be “centralised creepy wankers”.

Or is that phrase Canadian for “American patriots”? Try again.

But here is the problem, it isn't a formal structure, there is no The Tea Party. It's an umbrella for unassociated groups of people who agree on a nebulous central tenant and disagree about everything else. You've got the Tea Party waxing eloquent on economics and history, the Tea Party of Sarah Palin hitching her wagon and the Tea Party trying to establish contacts with the EDL :? .

Mumble something about low taxes, the founders, stick pencils in your nose and shout 'TEA PARTY!', hey-ho, you're on the news and everyone's laughing at you.

Don't lose heart, comrade Truman - early communists were hundreds of competing sects that literally and theoretically beat the shit out of each other, till the cream rose to the top.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

'Preciate the encouragement, Doc. I actually gave your take some thought... If only it were that easy, tovarisch.

Unfortunately, aside from a shared ideological struggle against tyranny, the parallel falls a bit short.

You nailed it Phibes: There IS no formal structure. Oh, sure, the various parties have their own committees, but it’s not like the farms and factories have collectively elected their own soviets to represent their views. Far from it. Such organization is a progenitor of unionism, whereas the TEA Party is simply a loose confederation of like-minded individuals.

Also, the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SR’s largely appealed to the proletariat because, well, the people were starving. Endless bread-lines have a tendency to sharpen the message of seeking a better way. You’ve seen TEA Party rallies. The middle-aged, middle-class attendees are decidedly, er, well-fed. Regardless, the vast majority of Americans are too fucking stupid to understand that their freedom has been co-opted anyway, beginning with my moniker’s boss back in the 1930s. “Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, or safety” and all that...

And while many that operate on the fringes of the TEA Party (thanks assholes) might advocate the formation of - or currently belong to – militias to help “encourage” their message, these paramilitary groups are a far cry from ever matching the effectiveness of the Red Guards of old.

And finally, Phibes, who will lead them? Levin? Beck? Limbaugh? Savage? All have been marginalized as right-wing nutjobs by the MSM, regardless of their message. There are no iron-willed leaders to step up and take the Party's reigns, such as a Lenin or a Trotsky. And besides: Lenin recognized early that only an Authoritarian presence could succeed in revolutionizing Russia. In case you missed it, we just elected one of those last Tuesday to a new four-year term.

Was over my bro-in-laws last night. He has evolved over the years from normal conservative to pretty much a full on thumper these days. My sis-in-law isn't to far behind him. Anyhoo, when i brought up the idea of concentrating on fiscal conservatism/social libertarianism they both more or less went off the fundy thumper deep end.

"They'll come into my church and censor speech" if we do that, she said.

WTF?

I tried to tell here that she was completely full of shit, but, trying to debate religious nut jobs of any variety is pretty much a waste of time.

I guess it's a question of math. Will a libertarian platform bring in enough of the pro-abortion types to make up for the holy rollers it runs off?

I think it can. Besides, if you emphasize the liberty part, meaning you will aggressively promote freedom OF religion over the "progressive" view of stomping out religion, I think you can hold onto the thumpers that are not too far gone. As to the ever popular topic of abortion, I kind of like Rudy's take on it. It's none of the fed's business. Even though he is pro-choice, he says that RvW is a horrible bit of judicial activism. And he's right.

As for the issue of foreign affairs that runs many conservatives away from the libertarian camp, I think there is room to find common ground there as well. I don't think we can stick our heads in the sand. We tried that and ended up with WWII. I think we should have a policy of maintaining a very capable military......right here, staffed more heavily with reservists. And we should make it very clear that we can and will bomb the everliving fukk out of those that piss us off badly enough. And if we do have to put boots on the ground, we will do so with a vengenace. No more half assing it on the cheap, rumsfeld style. Maybe go so far as to officially revoke our policy of never going to the pre-emptive nuke card. I mean fukk, we did it once and it worked out for us.

Truman wrote: And besides: Lenin recognized early that only an Authoritarian presence could succeed in revolutionizing Russia. In case you missed it, we just elected one of those last Tuesday to a new four-year term.

Please name the last POTUS who wasn't, in your lard filled brain, an authoritarian.

This should be fun.

What he should have said was totalitarian.

You are correct that our gubmint has been authoritarian for quite some time. Obongo wants to kick it up a notch or two to full on totalitarianism.