Discussion in 'The Sanctum Santorum' started by Meserach, Nov 7, 2012.
The best part is that he declares Wisconsin is not a swing state like two hours after declaring Romney will win it.
Also boy oh boy, is Romney going out classy.
Holy *shit*, what a douchebag. He's obviously viewing every action that Obama has taken in office as weapons designed to keep him office. For example:
IT WASN'T A TOOL, JACKASS. It was an attempt to fix the current broken system. And, to be perfectly honest, it wasn't that bold or effective a fix, from what I understand. But it's the best he could get past you & your party of douchebags.
Obama cynically got people to vote for him by passing legislation designed to make their lives better.
I'd like to write more on this topic but the brain just went on strike.
Goddamn what an asshole.
I sincerely love this shit. You parse out the meaning, and what are they saying? "Barack Obama was a such a good president that people want to reelect him." Why, yes, that is why you should vote Barack Obummer- dur, I mean ROMNEY
But he was only a good president so he could be re-elected. He did NOTHING for those who wouldn't vote for him! Taxation without representation!! Tea Party Tea Party!
To make the irony more complete, did you guys notice that liveblog dude Kevin DuJan is actually a gay conservative? Which really puts into perspective his bafflement that minorities don't feel Romney has their interests at heart.
Here's another really dumb guy.
Actually, no sir. The man who paved the way for the future reign of the Antichrist was Jesus Christ. It's described in a book.
I knew that Jesus guy was up to no good!
Unless I'm getting the chocolate and the peanut butter in this thread mixed up....
I have a hard time believing anyone that's really gay would make a statement like
WTF does being gay have anything to do with the rest of the crap in that statement?
It kind of makes sense that this would be the Republican line, though. Their entire means of getting elected is convincing people to vote against their own interests, so it's natural for them to rail against Obama voters for voting in their own interest.
The reason the GOP tolerates some minority groups within its gilded tent-despite having whole planks of their platform devoted to marginalizing them-is that they adhere to Tim Watley's school of what constitutes fair play in public discourse. This is the maximum level in ultraconservative rhetorical jiujitsu, above even "but some of my best employees are...".
It's all about hard work and sacrifice, which is why only real Americans sacrifice their own interests. Just don't try to answer the question as to who or what they're making that sacrifice for. Probably children and freedom and not at all the ultra-rich because that'd be silly, right?
This here is why dumbshits kill themselves and their families because an African-American Democrat wins an election.
I lay their deaths firmly at the feet of the crazy-ass wing of the GOP, which in reality is now more like one wing, the entire fuselage, the tail and part of the other wing.
Wait, wait. Chip Rogers? Chip? As in microchip? The technology the CIA uses in mind control? These false-flag operations aren't even trying anymore.
Oh please, like the Right Wing would stoop to base fear tactics
I think my favorite part of this conspiracy is that two of the major players in it are Obama and the local chambers of commerce. Which, for the most part, stumped HARD for Romney because of how much they hate Obama's anti-business practices. Which are also mostly an unfounded conspiracy theory.
Man, those chambers of commerce, they're playing one hell of a long con here.
OH OR MAYBE INSTEAD EVERYONE BELIEVING THIS SHIT IS BATFUCK INSANE.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE
*shoots milk out of nose*
Actually, this theory is inaccurate for two reasons.
1. Most local Chambers of Commerce (the ones that typically cover a city or a small region) are 501c6's and are not set up for political advocacy. Chambers like the one I'm a member of can send out neutral information to their members, but can't do any lobbying or advocacy. As a result, it's just as stupid to say they were for Romney any more than they were for Obama's mind control.
2. The Chambers that were lobbying for Romney are the larger regional and state Chambers that have lobbying arms, like the US Chamber of Commerce (Fucktards), the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, etc.
As a sidenote, there is usually zero connection between these Chambers. Most local Chambers are not associated in any way financially with their regional or state Chambers.
Just had to clear that up.
Oh, come on. Surely you're familiar with the mass suburban migrations caused by the Iron Age mammoth attacks on the great cities of the Atlantic coast. What kind of an education have you had, anyway?
Yeah the San Francisco Giants cleaned their clocks in the series two years ago and for the league pennant this year. So to us commie-fag-junkies in the Bay Area, the Texas Rangers are legendary like the Buffalo Bills during the early 90s.
I, for one, welcome 1000 years of darkness.
If we're sharing Youtube videos about the next 1000 years of darknes, I prefer this one :)
Ah, interesting, thanks! I knew that they were all independent, but I didn't know that local ones couldn't do lobbying or advocacy like the larger ones could.
SO THE MIND CONTROL THEORY MUST BE TRUE!
In your defense, 501(c)3 churches quote-unquote "can't" do political lobbying either.
Wow, just....wow......those are GOP "lawmakers" attending this meeting?
Batshitinsane is too nice a term.
Also, in the Chuck Norris video, are those KKK hoods behind his wife?
Obviously karate outfits, but I don't know.....
The threat level has risen from batshit to batfuck?! You know what happens now.
I'll just go ahead and leave this here:
By the way, good 'ole Turdblossom's prediction at the five minute mark is particularly scrumptious.
All say the same thing: "I don't care about all the polls saying Obama will win."
Sincere question: Did most of these people actually believe Romney would win (I know Romney did), or were they cheerleading Romney because it was their job to do so? They are advocates for a position, after all.
Some level of advocating the idea of being the silent majority in order to sell ads, some level of actually smoking their own product.
To be fair, if you watched any MSNBC in September/early October they were just as ridiculous in their certainty that Obama would win. Obama was always favored and it was never that close, but I saw those guys saying in September that there was literally no way for Romney to win besides massive voter fraud. I think it's just a tendency among lazy, partisan "news" outlets to tell their audience what they want to hear, even though it's obviously very unhelpful and may even be detrimental to their candidates' campaigns.
I didn't/don't watch TV news so I'm not qualified to comment on what coverage was like, but Romney's campaign died in the late summer and kept dying worse and worse up until the first debate; followers of any of the good poll aggregates basically thought Romney was done like dinner. How things changed.
I think they've got to be just cheerleading.
You think Rove is gonna' go on FOX and say it deosn't look good for his team?
Well to pull out the old fivethirtyeight chance to win number one more time, on September 19 Nate was giving Obama 72.9% to win. A really firm lead but not a done deal, and that's with close to two months to go during which all kinds of things could happen. Would I have said at that time that I thought Obama was going to win? Absolutely I would have, and I did. But there's a difference between that and what I'm describing, which isn't an exaggeration; I literally saw one of MSNBC's blowhard hosts claim that Romney could only win the election by cheating. They conducted an instant Twitter poll on the subject and 99% of their viewers agreed with that statement. That's the same kind of cheerleading that Fox was doing and it isn't vindicated by the fact that Obama did eventually win.
So A Guy said A Thing and that was the Nov 6-cast on the 19th (a bit of a trough compared to the pre-debate trendline.)
Again, you're the better judge of MSNBC's tone but at that point it looked like a lock. Compare the "Now-cast" and the "Nov 6 cast," the latter of which built in a lot of hardline conservatism about uncertainty. The sort of people who were checking 538 multiple times a day were checking both "Now" and "Nov 6," and the fact that the nowcast topped out at over 98% pre-debate was pretty amazing given the supposedly competitive fundamentals.
For poll-obsessives, the extent of Romney's late-summer collapse was one of the reasons the competitive period between the debates and the elections was such a gut-wrenching horror-show - it went from a 98% now-cast and 47% and the world's most listless campaign to too-close to call for reals for a while there. For no discernible reason.
I obviously wouldn't have said on September 30th that Romney could only win by cheating, but there was every reason to think at that date the he was royally, royally fucked by the standards of election competitiveness, and when things changed a few weeks later it wasn't really because that assessment was wrong so much as because America's reaction to a television debate was wrong.
You say "MSNBC blowhard," I hear "Ed Schultz." Fun fact: started as a bog-standard Rush clone in Fargo and became more liberal when he realized there was an opening for a left-leaning blowhard on talk radio.
Ha, that's the one. I couldn't remember his name and come on, I'm not about to go try to look it up.
Separate names with a comma.