Is The GOP Race Over?

It was already well established just not quite as sickening.  We all know you're willing to smear anyone you disagree with politically but you really went above and beyond, this time.  You win the limbo contest that only you were having.  You can now go clean the mud off your clothes.

manofmystery wrote: It was already well established just not quite as sickening.  We all know you're willing to smear anyone you disagree with politically but you really went above and beyond, this time.  You win the limbo contest that only you were having.  You can now go clean the mud off your clothes.

If I've been dealing out smear I have had it returned in kind.

For crying out loud, I can agree with some of what Ron P stands for and you can't agree with a single thing that Obama B does.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 17 2012 at 10:26

Did you all see the disgusting support the NDAA received from all GOP candidates but one last night?

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Did you all see the disgusting support the NDAA received from all GOP candidates but one last night? Maybe voters and politicians need to be detained Salem-style for a while without due process.  Perhaps only then will they realize the value of the fifth and sixth amendments.

We can not truly be free until we are all locked up and the people who don't vote and aren't politicians are put in charge.

manofmystery wrote: There's a difference with disagreeing and smearing.  Pointing out that he has been, at best, George W. Bush on steroids isn't a smear: it's accurate.

No it's bullcrap.  If you think some of Obama administration's policies aren't an anathema to liberals you aren't paying attention.  If you think you can convince us to support Paul you aren't making as convincing of an argument as you think you are.  For whatever you want to blame it on RP will not be the Republican nominee.  If you think we'll vote for Romney over Obama forget about it.  We won't sit this one out though.

And still you can not name one policy of the Obama administration you actually agree with.

Are you intentionally blinded by hate?


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 17 2012 at 18:31

manofmystery wrote: Hahaha, you're amazing.  You really can't seperate policy from person, can you?  I'd be hard pressed to name a piece of policy from W that I agree with either.  I'm not trying to get you to vote for anyone but I would like you to stop being so tied up in party politics.  Everything you say is based the belief that no matter how much the democrat is a republican or the republican is a democrat you should vote for them because they have the correct letter next to their name and, even though they are basically the same, one is the "lesser of two evils".  I'm basically trolling the two-party system through you  because you just make a great poster boy for it.

I really don't like the results the two party politics deliver here.  It is however what we have to work with.  I do think it was made worse by the rubber stamp for superpacs.  What do you think about that?  Do you believe in corporate person hood? 

Yeah I know I am compromising my beliefs by not treating you as total moron.  Roll with it.

I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas than insults.  You will now say that I am not.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 17 2012 at 19:29

You only consider them hit pieces because you don't agree with opinions.  Political cartoons are a way getting a point across graphically and have been a part of political discourse for a very long time. 

But you have to face some facts, racism is far from dead in this country, it just isn't as overt.  To be sure most peoples beliefs don't fit into neat boxes, but you can't divorce politics from party labels.

I find it amusing that Newt thought the Citizens United decision was a good one and then started whining when the superpac beasts turned on him. 

McCain Feingold put limits on paid speech.  Should those with money have the right to shout down the rest of us?

Lastly, the people who make up corporations already have free speech rights, I see no need to let their companies have it.

Brought to mind a funny line:  I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 18 2012 at 05:15

Romney's statements have repeatedly shown is an out of touch rich kid who doesn't really appreciate what life is like for those of us not born into privilege.  I admire Paul for hanging in there but I suspect the reason why he is holding steady is that the mainstream media has written him of and he's not getting much scrutiny.

The US has long been the beacon of democracy in the world (supposedly) but then I see Romney's net (over 200 million) and then I see that everyone in US politics (even Ron Paul) is rich, then I see that even in not-so-democratic countries like mine of origin you don't really have to be rich to be a president, and I ask: isn't that a sign that the US democracy is just a rich people's game? Why did it become like this? I've no problem with rich people but those who love big governments and blame the rich for everything should realize that probably nowehere else is being rich such a sine-qua-non requirement to be a president as in the US.

Slartibartfast wrote: Romney's statements have repeatedly shown is an out of touch rich kid who doesn't really appreciate what life is like for those of us not born into privilege.  I admire Paul for hanging in there but I suspect the reason why he is holding steady is that the mainstream media has written him of and he's not getting much scrutiny.

 

Rick Perry drops out and maintains his credibility, as a Washington outsider, by endorsing.... Newt Gingrich?!