FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

hondo · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Azrael said:

Drip said:

Piece of shit Romney talking about touring Jersey. Media whore to the end I reckon.
Click to expand...

Who says gracious political discourse is dead?
Click to expand...

I got no problem with a presidential candidate visiting a disaster site, as long as he doesn't try to upstage the President when he's going to make his obligatory tour.

hondo · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Uncle.Ruckus said:

exmediahack said:

Can't wait to see the President walking about West Philly after the storm, handing out free phones and $20 bills to remind his base to vote.
Click to expand...

You're a cocksucker.
Click to expand...

Geez, you ever stop to think he was kidding? Or being sarcastic? Lighten up Frances.

Double Down · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

If you're just not that into Nate Silver and think math has a political bias, then Worth Net Daily has a story about a man who has analyzed Bible codes which tell him Mitt Romney will be our next president.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/does-bible-code-predict-president-romney/?cat_orig=politics

Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes: There are people out there who won't believe anything they see in the New York Times, but believe their email forwards are 100 percent gospel.

Alma · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

old_tony said:

Alma said:

old_tony said:

Alma said:

old_tony said:

Alma said:

old_tony said:

Alma said:

He said no more or less than Obama did. Obama made a quip. Bush made a speech. Obama pushed health care. Bush went on a tour to privatize Social Security. They're both <i>huge</i> issues. Pet projects of their respective sides. They approached it exactly the same.

What's interesting to me is that, for all these jabs and one-liners you push, you're seriously holding it against Obama for not working with your side enough? The Koch Brothers, nasty as they are, aren't that naive. Politics in this country, especially now, is an inch-by-inch, hour-by-hour bare-knuckle fight. If you want to indict Obama for presuming he could rise above it, fine. But holding him to the standard of unity when your definition of unity, at least in the thread, is "everything I want, no exceptions" is Palinesque. Which is to say a child grown old.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can understand how someone considers providing thousands of jobs and donating millions in charity would be "nasty." We certainly don't see such behavior from the left. :

Your statement proves you have no idea at all about the Kochs. Read something other than hard-left blogs.
Click to expand...

Your weakness as a debater blooms in this post. Of all the arguments you could make, you choose the postmodern/PR response that only people employed by the Kochs would bother to make. To paint the Kochs as anything but formidable, win-at-any-cost types -- their own political advisor uses the word "ugly" to describe their smear campaigns is a deliberate, weak sauce troll, or it reveals you as a starry-eyed unicorn enthusiast.
Click to expand...

Got that from Kos, right?
Click to expand...

I've never read a single word of his Web site. Never even been there.

You can either stay in the game or romp around with one-liners. You've been beaten so thoroughly on the "I won" critique that I suspect you're still looking for your mouthpiece.

There are lots of good arguments out there to make on the Koch Brothers' brand of nasty. The "how dare you!" tack ain't one of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. Good philanthropists aren't your type.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it, too. You can't really debate. Good troll, though. Too bad.
Click to expand...

So what is it you have against freedom-loving philanthropists who give more to charity than your top 100 favorite democrats?
Click to expand...

Loaded question. Well, it's not really, but for you to pose it, it would be. It presumes the values "freedom-loving" and "give more to charity" could only exist in exclusion to negative traits. What could anyone have against anybody? Lots of things.

Beyond, I never argued they didn't love freedom or that they didn't give the charity. I argued they were nasty. I offered a window into their worldview. Your response was to highlight their charitable efforts. But who I think they are and what they give to charity are not mutually exclusive, IMO. If you think they are, we can debate that. It's a debate you'd lose, but we can debate it.

joe · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Wait, I thought everything on the interwebs was true, otherwise they couldn't put it out there. Bonjour!

Tom Petty · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Uncle.Ruckus said:

exmediahack said:

Can't wait to see the President walking about West Philly after the storm, handing out free phones and $20 bills to remind his base to vote.
Click to expand...

You're a cocksucker.
Click to expand...

yes, he is. and i believe that's a verb because i believe you meant to "say" exmediahack sucks cocks ... so it should be two words.

Tom Petty · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Uncle.Ruckus said:

dog eat dog world said:

Uncle.Ruckus said:

Not at all. Obama's going to win. That doesn't mean I'm not going to point out cocksuckery when I see it. And exmediahack is a sexist, racist cocksucker.
Click to expand...

Given the rules, I hope it is time you took a break Uncle.
Click to expand...

Calling someone a cocksucker on this thread isn't against the rules, you whining, dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

i believe dumbfuck is one word in that instance.

Tom Petty · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

dog eat dog world said:

Double Down said:

Whining about the rules IS, however, against the rules. In fact, it's the only rule.
Click to expand...

I wasn't whining, I was pointing out a violation of the rules.
Click to expand...

pussy.

Tarheel316 · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Man, it is on here!

Tom Petty · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Tarheel316 said:

Man, it is on here!
Click to expand...

what? i was just helping ruckus with his grammar.

Tarheel316 · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Tom Petty said:

Tarheel316 said:

Man, it is on here!
Click to expand...

what? i was just helping ruckus with his grammar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess he needed it. But I'm sure he'll get pissed off.

Tom Petty · Oct 30, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Tarheel316 said:

Tom Petty said:

Tarheel316 said:

Man, it is on here!
Click to expand...

what? i was just helping ruckus with his grammar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess he needed it. But I'm sure he'll get pissed off.
Click to expand...

ah, hell no. ruckus strives to be correct ... unlike several others here.

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

hondo Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

Double Down Well-Known Member

Alma Well-Known Member

joe Active Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

Tom Petty New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

hondo Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

Double Down Well-Known Member

Alma Well-Known Member

joe Active Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

Tom Petty New Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

Tom Petty New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches