With Obama, it's more like when do we break wind?majorspark;1064478 wrote:Obama is going to reveal in his state of the campaign address his "blueprint" for the economy. It took 3yrs to get the blueprint done. We are all on the edge of our seats. Will it include a budget? When do we break ground?
I have to agree with you on this one. Gingrich has stolen a few pages out of Clinton's play book.I Wear Pants;1064549 wrote:Does anyone find it absurd that Gingrich is now running as a "outsider who scares the Republican establishment", "never a lobbyist", "no ties to the power structure", and a family values candidate? It's fucking insane. But apparently the GOP primary voter base is stupid enough to eat that shit up.
It'd be like Obama running again on a platform of "I kept all my campaign promises". Simply would be untrue.
Are Obama Bullshit Bingo Cards similar to Taro cards? After all it will be a near-mystical experience to hear the Appointed One speak more of the successes of hope & change. The MSM will lap it up anyways.BGFalcons82;1064550 wrote:Everybody got their Obama Bullshit Bingo cards ready for tonight's teleprompter reading?
No one who has looked at Gingrich's record can claim he is even a little bit conservative or that he is anything but corrupt. The family values thing is a joke too, but that just confirms the ignorance of the electorate.I Wear Pants;1064549 wrote:Does anyone find it absurd that Gingrich is now running as a "outsider who scares the Republican establishment", "never a lobbyist", "no ties to the power structure", and a family values candidate? It's fucking insane. But apparently the GOP primary voter base is stupid enough to eat that shit up.
It'd be like Obama running again on a platform of "I kept all my campaign promises". Simply would be untrue.
I'm not even going to watch him. I already know what he is going to say.BGFalcons82;1064550 wrote:Everybody got their Obama Bullshit Bingo cards ready for tonight's teleprompter reading?
Oh come on! It's fun to fill up your card with all his sloganeering. And besides, he might just make you mad enough to want him expelled in 10 months.Cleveland Buck;1064562 wrote:I'm not even going to watch him. I already know what he is going to say.
Newt is rumored to have hand picked John Bolton for VP. The 2 widely acclaimed chickenhawks will turn Iran into a glass factory within 6 months. The "lobby" will be oh so pleased.I Wear Pants;1064549 wrote:Does anyone find it absurd that Gingrich is now running as a "outsider who scares the Republican establishment", "never a lobbyist", "no ties to the power structure", and a family values candidate? It's ****ing insane. But apparently the GOP primary voter base is stupid enough to eat that **** up.
It'd be like Obama running again on a platform of "I kept all my campaign promises". Simply would be untrue.
Apparently it's not unwanted, which makes sense, since people who frequent such clubs likely know what kind of contact they're going to experience beforehand. "Unwanted" is the key difference. People at dance clubs are apparently okay with the contact they find there. Hence, the analogy doesn't match up in regard to this point.fish82;1064454 wrote:I'm speaking to the level of contact...it's similar to what you would find on a dance floor. Hence, if "unwanted contact is unwanted contact," then I'd assume you'd hear a lot more bitching about people getting their stuff brushed up on in that setting.
I'm not so sure your rascally Libertarian Paul would beat Obama either. You would think the Repubs could run a slimy slug and beat Obama into oblivion. The Repubs do seem to be looking for a way to lose.Cleveland Buck;1064560 wrote:Fox wants anyone but Paul. The liberal media does too, but they would love Newt because Obama would beat him by 20 points. Obama would think his ridiculous regime was getting a mandate he would crush Newt so hard.
Apparently it's not unwanted, since people who frequent such checkpoints likely know what kind of contact they're going to experience beforehand. The analogy matches up just fine, thanks.O-Trap;1064771 wrote:Apparently it's not unwanted, which makes sense, since people who frequent such clubs likely know what kind of contact they're going to experience beforehand. "Unwanted" is the key difference. People at dance clubs are apparently okay with the contact they find there. Hence, the analogy doesn't match up in regard to this point.
Here's what to wear to protest TSA groping - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MsXE4BqEeF4#!fish82;1064814 wrote:Apparently it's not unwanted, since people who frequent such checkpoints likely know what kind of contact they're going to experience beforehand. The analogy matches up just fine, thanks.
Business travel doesn't always allow for someone to drive to a business meeting. I fly out to California once every 3 months, there's no way in hell my company would allow for me to drive all the way out there.HitsRus;1064857 wrote:There is nothing that forces people to travel by air. You know the rules when you by your ticket.
fish82;1064814 wrote:Apparently it's not unwanted, since people who frequent such checkpoints likely know what kind of contact they're going to experience beforehand. The analogy matches up just fine, thanks.
Knowing that a violation is coming doesn't really make it any less a violation. The same concept can be applied to our financial philosophy as a nation. "Don't like it? You can move." Since when was protest or the desire to fix something broken a bad thing?HitsRus;1064857 wrote:There is nothing that forces people to travel by air. You know the rules when you by your ticket.
No, but that isn't the point. The point is too see just how much of our freedom they can convince us to give away before we wake up.O-Trap;1064928 wrote:Have the cop-a-feel cops ever thwarted a terrorist attack on record? I'm curious.
My reason for asking was to establish whether or not they've any defensible evidence of being safer. We still shouldn't be forced to engage in it, but is there any verifiable evidence to contend that we are any safer?Cleveland Buck;1064939 wrote:No, but that isn't the point. The point is too see just how much of our freedom they can convince us to give away before we wake up.
http://ivn.us/news/2012/01/25/despite-media-claims-the-numbers-reveal-ron-paul-is-electable/"It has nearly become a journalistic convention to editorialize alongside any reference to Texas congressman Ron Paul that the 2012 presidential candidate is considered by many to be unelectable. Or, that other than some interesting points of view and a curiously energized following, Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy is unserious, that the Republican Party’s constitutionalist– as Mitt Romney recently called Paul in a debate– has no viable path to the White House.
Just last month for example, iconic conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh made an appearance on Fox News Channel‘s On The Record with Greta van Sustren and said, “I think right now anybody other than Ron Paul could beat Obama if the election were tomorrow.” But this claim isn’t just being repeated by talk radio hosts who stand opposite of Ron Paul in the Republican Party’s internecine battle over principles and policy, it’s being repeated by presumably objective news anchors and writers– it’s showing up as a random aside in Associated Press reports, whose authors can’t seem to bear mentioning Ron Paul’s name without editorializing that the presidential hopeful is “often dismissed as unelectable by members of his own party.”
But is Ron Paul actually unelectable? Do the facts support that claim? Whether you agree with Ron Paul’s political views or not, whether you think he should be the Republican Party’s nominee or not, his actual electability as a presidential candidate is an entirely separate question– one that can be answered by investigating the facts instead of merely repeating the same opinion ad nauseam and hoping it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the status quo‘s cheerleaders in the media have seemingly been doing.
As is consistently attested by poll results and even the Republican Party’s most recent primary votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the facts are these: Ron Paul performs better among independents than any other Republican candidate for the presidential nomination. He also performs better among young voters under 30 than any other Republican. Ron Paul also outperforms any of the remaining Republican candidates among Democrats, liberals, moderates, and low-income voters.
Independents, people under 30, liberals, moderates, and low income voters are all key constituencies that helped Obama win his primary and the general election in 2008. It only stands to reason that the candidate with the broadest appeal to Obama’s key voters and the greatest chance of swaying their votes is the most electable candidate. Even former Florida Governor Jeb Bush realizes that the Republicans can only win the general election with a candidate who appeals to independents, which is why he recently admonished the GOP’s candidates, saying “You have to maintain your principles but have a broader appeal.”
Maintain principles while having a broader appeal? Even Ron Paul’s critics will concede that he is extremely principled. The facts, meanwhile, show that Ron Paul also has the broadest appeal to voters. That’s why it’s no surprise that Paul runs neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in hypothetical general election match ups according to the polls, another fact that disproves the constantly-repeated claim that Ron Paul is not electable. The polls show that in fact, Ron Paul is more electable than any other Republican candidate except for Mitt Romney, with whom he is tied– and both are tied against President Obama.
It’s one thing to offer substantive criticisms of Ron Paul’s candidacy and beliefs, but it’s another thing entirely to mislead voters into thinking that his chances of winning are much worse than the facts actually indicate they are. It’s up to the media to inform voters, not pick the nominee for them. The media owes Ron Paul, but more importantly, owes its audience a less misleading assessment of Ron Paul’s electability. Members of the media should set the record straight. Because of his strong appeal to independents, moderates, young voters, and low income voters, Ron Paul does as well or better than any other Republican candidate in a general election match up with President Obama. Those are facts. Like him or not, Ron Paul’s electable."