SilentSnow 1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 2012 election:1. Republicans still waiting for a real candidate, while Gary Johnson can't get coverage.5. Newseek posts a flagrantly bad photoshop of Michelle Bachman to make her look crazy; the left, apparently unaware of Photoshop, thinks it is proof she is crazy.1.Sorry to break it to you, but the tea party hates libertarians(not quite as much as they do liberals, of course). As of right now the tea party controls the Republican party since the pathetic Republican moderates are too afraid to stand up to them. http://myteaparty.org/results/5.Evidence? As far as I know that picture is not photoshopped. Bachmann really does look that crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 5.Evidence?It's been all over the web:The Newsweek coverThe original, before being photoshoppedEDIT: If you put the two images on two tabs next to each other and click them really fast, it's kind of fun. If anyone knows how to make an animated gif, this would be a great chance. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 It's been all over the web:The Newsweek coverThe original, before being photoshoppedEDIT: If you put the two images on two tabs next to each other and click them really fast, it's kind of fun. If anyone knows how to make an animated gif, this would be a great chance.Well good thing us liberals already all sold our souls to Satan. Otherwise we might be concerned that she is running for president. As it is you're just throwing us into the briar patch. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 As a right wing troll, you should know as well as anyone that there are 50 states in the union.Ummmmyou post a list of the worstest states in order of magnitude.you then use this list to 'prove' your point that republicans are badI point out that 4 of the top 5 are democrat controlled states. And I only stopped there because it was funny.You then point out there are 58 states...err 50.I win.HB soon to include Woosh Woosh Nija Logic Woosh Woosh line.Everyone gets it, except you. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 1.Sorry to break it to you, but the tea party hates libertarians(not quite as much as they do liberals, of course). As of right now the tea party controls the Republican party since the pathetic Republican moderates are too afraid to stand up to them. http://myteaparty.org/results/5.Evidence? As far as I know that picture is not photoshopped. Bachmann really does look that crazy.Silly Tea Party.Thinking that they have the right to stand up for what they believe in and make happen an historic party change in the house of representatives.Then they think they are relevant.Silly Tea Party.the best thing you can do is continue to bury your head and think they don't matter. Next you can ignore that horn sound with lights bearing down on you while you stand on a railroad track and promise us that you dems still run things. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Heard on the radio today that our new governor has passed a deal where ALL the electoral college votes in California will now go to which ever candidate has the most popular votes across the nation.Yea, no reason to make California matter at all. Candidates can now skip California, they only get those 55 electoral college votes if they get the popular vote.This is an attempt to change the constitution without changing the constitution in the manner the constitution allowed.Gotta love democrats willing to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of their plans.People are so retarded. That being said, this changes nothing for the country. I would fully expect all of the "big" states (in population) to sign onto this. The electoral college is for the protection of the little (in population) states.I can see why you guys think Perry is so great.A sphincter says what? Which of us said he was "great"? Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 As it is you're just throwing us into the briar patch.RACIST Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Each state's legislature determines how its electors are to be chosen.[34] Currently, all states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states, and Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding its electors as a single bloc.[citation needed] Two states, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote.[citation needed] This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992Thanks for this. I reiterate that it is absolutely insane that every state doesn't do it the same way. It is possibly more insane that individual states have the option to change it. I thought you were the UNITED States! Ohhhh snap. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Silly Tea Party.Thinking that they have the right to stand up for what they believe in and make happen an historic party change in the house of representatives.Then they think they are relevant.Silly Tea Party.the best thing you can do is continue to bury your head and think they don't matter. Next you can ignore that horn sound with lights bearing down on you while you stand on a railroad track and promise us that you dems still run things.Your trolling is severely deteriorating. The first rule of trolling is not to get your opponents' position wildly wrong, because they then have no incentive to respond to you. The goal is to get some part of it right, then distort the rest. I clearly have said they do matter since they have a hugely disproportionate influence over government compared to their actual numbers in congress and the general population. Obviously we disagree on whether that is a good thing. I have stated multiple times that Liberals are disenfranchised in this country and Democrats do not even remotely run things. The last time Democrats ran things in this country was the 1960s. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Your trolling is severely deteriorating. The first rule of trolling is not to get your opponents' position wildly wrong, because they then have no incentive to respond to you. The goal is to get some part of it right, then distort the rest.I bow to your superior innate trolling skills.I clearly have said they do matter since they have a hugely disproportionate influence over government compared to their actual numbers in congress and the general population. Obviously we disagree on whether that is a good thing. I have stated multiple times that Liberals are disenfranchised in this country and Democrats do not even remotely run things. The last time Democrats ran things in this country was the 1960s. Well, with the way Obama and Co are running things...it will be a long time before they ever get to run anything but their mouths for a long time. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Heard on the radio today that our new governor has passed a deal where ALL the electoral college votes in California will now go to which ever candidate has the most popular votes across the nation.Yea, no reason to make California matter at all. Candidates can now skip California, they only get those 55 electoral college votes if they get the popular vote.This is an attempt to change the constitution without changing the constitution in the manner the constitution allowed.Gotta love democrats willing to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of their plans.Gotta love republicans, never actually reading the constitution but thinking it always supports their side: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (Article 2, Clause 2)So, we can choose them by whatever method we choose. But the bill is interesting, it's not just california, there's a group of states that would buy in to the same system, and the idea is that eventually they all would. Can't the guy who votes in the "electoral college" just, in the end, vote for whoever he wants regardless of what the people say? I don't think so. They are required to follow the rules that their state gives them. Some states require all votes to go to whichever candidate wins the state, some states split the votes based on the voting precinct results.I don't think I've ever heard of an electoral college vote going contrary to their prescribed policy.Yes they can, although they may be punished by their state for doing so. It has happened before, they are called "faithless electors". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electorIf someone had told me that some states do it one way and some do it another, I would have told them they must be confused, because no voting system could ever be so ridiculous as to not have this consistent one way or the other.I believe everything that BG says, so I'm not even going to look that up.Really though? The votes in states are divided differently? That seems absolutely insane. Thanks for this. I reiterate that it is absolutely insane that every state doesn't do it the same way. It is possibly more insane that individual states have the option to change it. I thought you were the UNITED States! Ohhhh snap.Why is it "insane" for states to be allowed to choose their electors how they wish to? We are a federation of states... Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Gotta love republicans, never actually reading the constitution but thinking it always supports their side: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (Article 2, Clause 2)So, we can choose them by whatever method we choose. But the bill is interesting, it's not just california, there's a group of states that would buy in to the same system, and the idea is that eventually they all would. Yes they can, although they may be punished by their state for doing so. It has happened before, they are called "faithless electors". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electorWhy is it "insane" for states to be allowed to choose their electors how they wish to? We are a federation of states...Your first two points made way too much sense for me to argue the one that referred to me. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 How will Bachmann's extreme religious views be used against her ?http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...nation?fsrc=nwl Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 The first Obama primary challenger is making noise. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 How will Bachmann's extreme religious views be used against her ?http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...nation?fsrc=nwl SO EXTREME!!!! EXTREME! RIGHT WING EXTREMIST!!!! EXTREME! Christians are all EXTREME!!! Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 SO EXTREME!!!! EXTREME! RIGHT WING EXTREMIST!!!! EXTREME! Christians are all EXTREME!!!Did you read the article ? Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Yes. She believes that the Bible is true and that it's the final authority in her life. Like I said... a Christian. EXTREEEEEEME!!! Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Yes. She believes that the Bible is true and that it's the final authority in her life. Like I said... a Christian. EXTREEEEEEME!!!I enjoy how I can quote this exactly and agree with it. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I don’t think Bachmann is going to win or that her views are typical. I think even among Christians her views would be seen as hardcore. The fact that she is getting consideration shows you how much fear there is of the current administration and how far they are out of touch with the public. I don’t believe the next President has entered the race yet. The independents will decide this next election and it is pretty obvious to most that our current leader is a jack-ass. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I don’t think Bachmann is going to win or that her views are typical. I think even among Christians her views would be seen as hardcore. The fact that she is getting consideration shows you how much fear there is of the current administration and how far they are out of touch with the public. I don’t believe the next President has entered the race yet. The independents will decide this next election and it is pretty obvious to most that our current leader is a jack-ass. I think that the reason Bachmann's popular with a large number of Republicans has little to do with Obama. She reflects the views of a large growing segment of the Conservative Base that are very fiscally and socially conservative and she's an attractive package to represent their views even if she will have little appeal to independents. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 SO EXTREME!!!! EXTREME! RIGHT WING EXTREMIST!!!! EXTREME! Christians are all EXTREME!!!Replace "Christian" with "Muslim" in that article, and half of America would want her held as a terrorist. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I think that the reason Bachmann's popular with a large number of Republicans has little to do with Obama. She reflects the views of a large growing segment of the Conservative Base that are very fiscally and socially conservative and she's an attractive package to represent their views even if she will have little appeal to independents. I think she is that person for a minority of very active Republicans which are driving things right now. I don’t believe in her ability to carry this all the way when more level headed people enter that race or become more active. At the end of the day people vote the wallet more than anything else. Jimmy Carter was one term for the same reasons that the first GB was one term…the economy was bad. Morals and socials issues lose importance to the masses when they don’t have job. If she can sell her platform as a fiscal conservative and keep the rest of it out…which I doubt she can do, maybe then she has a chance. I do think many independents and or moderates will be voting for whatever candidate is against BHO. Personally I will be voting for the biggest fiscal conservative I can find, I will take care of my own morals. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 SO EXTREME!!!! EXTREME! RIGHT WING EXTREMIST!!!! EXTREME! Christians are all EXTREME!!!Most of the Christians I know would find her very extreme. I live in godless, fake America though (translation: a city).The first Obama primary challenger is making noise. I thought this was going to be someone serious. I think the mounting evidence that both the right fringe and the left fringe hate Obama is proof he is doing as good a job as possible with a completely divided populace. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 5. Newseek posts a flagrantly bad photoshop of Michelle Bachman to make her look crazy; the left, apparently unaware of Photoshop, thinks it is proof she is crazy.Nah, we still have a couple of decent news sources on the left unlike the righthttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/10/...311514320110810Also, that's not photoshop; it's just a terrible picture used on the cover for underhanded purposes. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Nah, we still have a couple of decent news sources on the left unlike the righthttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/10/...311514320110810Also, that's not photoshop; it's just a terrible picture used on the cover for underhanded purposes.I like this line from Jon Stewart"But. Be honest Newsweek. You used that photo in a petty attempt to make Michele Bachman look crazy. And that's what her words are for. ...You want a photo that makes her seem a little off? Make it out of her words." Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now