• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Explain please

Some mormons (the crazy/apocalypse-lusting ones) are claiming that Mitt Romney is fulfilling a prophecy that Joseph Smith made about the "Constitution hanging by a thread" (Glen Beck uses this wording all the time) and that a "white horse" would raise up and save the constitution.

It's known as the "White horse" prophecy though there was a "red horse" in it too. But most don't remember the red horse.

It's not official doctrine. Some interpret it to go on to talk about the US becoming a theocracy. Others interpret it as a sign of the times. Others just dismiss it (I think Romney did this), and others point out that shortly after making this prophecy Joseph Smith ran for president and was probably talking about himself.
 
Legitimately the worst fake laugh I have ever heard.

Bob McDonnell is popping up on my twitter feed as a promoted tweet from the Republican Governor's Association. "Stand with Scott." The Republican party seems determined to die on that hill.

Would that be Scott Walker or Rick Scott? Never mind . . . who cares about either?
 
The difference between Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax return:

Obams - Was being asked to provide proof of citizenship in a way few (if any) other presidential candidates were asked.
Mittens - Is being asked to provide financial documentation which every single presidential candidate has done in the modern era.

Obams - Largely ignored the calls for his birth certificate and when asked directly he handled it in a calm stern fashion.
Mittens - Became a complete stammering mess on multiple occasions when asked about the release of his tax returns even though a blind man could see the questions coming a mile away.

Obams - Outside of wild conspiracies from the fringes, there was never any questionable details uncovered. No embarrassing info. Nothing to make you say, "Ah, that's why he didn't want to release it right away".
Mittens - We're already finding out that he's paid a very low income tax rate and that he has funds in the Cayman Islands. Meaning, there's already evidence why he wants to keep this stuff under wraps.


That said, I agree liberals need to be careful not to get conspiratorial on what's in Romney's tax returns. It's not that he did anything illegal. It's just his tax returns (especially if it goes back several years) will show how rich guys game the system. That in itself is pretty damning when the mood of the country has shifted to questioning economic inequality.
 
Oh it's hilarious the cognitive dissonance in the republicans.

"So long as Newt made his peace with God who am I to judge him? Romney's a Mormon? I'll NEVER vote for him!!".
But don't you see? Newt asked for forgiveness from the right god. It is not like they would be loving Newt if he asked for forgiveness from Allah.
 
I should add that Romney's image is slowly changing from a Job Creator to a Corporate Raider.

This is very similar to how the Bush campaign gradually morphed John Kerry into an rich out of touch north easterner flip-flopper during the mid/late stages of the Democratic primary in '04.

Romney has to be really careful right now that the Gordon Gekko image doesn't take a permanent hold in the voter's psyche.
 
I'm watching the video of Newt answering King's question, and it so fucking hilarious. The guy doesn't answer the question, goes off about how the news media sucks, makes vague references about everyone feeling pain, says how despicable the question is... He does all this and shuts up King as effectively as if he would have answering the question.

That's it. I'm converting.

Newt for GOP 2012!

That was my favorite part of the response. Because he was framing it in a way that made him sound sympathetic, when he was the one causing the pain by having an affair. And he got an applause line out of it. Masterful.

Romney's rapidly growing image as a corporate raider is one he should be increasingly worried about.

Someone might need to double check this one, but I'm pretty sure South Carolina has a 100% record at picking the GOP presidential candidate, and it sure looks like Newt will pull it off. And it will come after Santorum won Iowa and Romney won New Hampshire. Why, it might make this primary quite entertaining after all.
 
So the Obama police state shut down meaupload?

That guy is doing everything he can to lose the youth vote. Everything. Hes leaving no stone unturned.


Look, if megavideo was actually a problem, the private market would use the invisible hand to correct the problem. Why do we need big government to come in and regulate, killing jobs?
 
To get off the subjects of the race real quick, here's an interesting philosophical point I've been thinking about recently. I was reading this article that details the story of an idiot right winger's idiot brother who tried to start a business but was stifled thanks to Obama's job killing regulations and such. The whole article is amusing, but what was noteworthy was the author's thesis:

This is my all time favorite right-wing logic. If your business fails, it's because there were too many regulations. If you can't afford the lifestyle to which you feel entitled, it's because your taxes are too high. It's never, ever your fault. Party of Personal Responsibility!tm Except when you fail; then it's not merely someone else's fault, but inevitably the government's fault.

It's funny, isn't it? If a poor person fails to become rich, it's entirely his fault, and no one should ever help these people out. But if one of the beloved "job creators" can't get richer, it's everyone else's fault, and we all have to accomodate to help these people out as much as possible.
 
So the Obama police state shut down meaupload?

That guy is doing everything he can to lose the youth vote. Everything. Hes leaving no stone unturned.


Look, if megavideo was actually a problem, the private market would use the invisible hand to correct the problem. Why do we need big government to come in and regulate, killing jobs?

They are! The invisible hand has seen it fit to pay for shills in the government to create regulation to cripple the Internet and further restrict US citizen rights.
 
To get off the subjects of the race real quick, here's an interesting philosophical point I've been thinking about recently. I was reading this article that details the story of an idiot right winger's idiot brother who tried to start a business but was stifled thanks to Obama's job killing regulations and such. The whole article is amusing, but what was noteworthy was the author's thesis:



It's funny, isn't it? If a poor person fails to become rich, it's entirely his fault, and no one should ever help these people out. But if one of the beloved "job creators" can't get richer, it's everyone else's fault, and we all have to accomodate to help these people out as much as possible.

But you forget to add that if you became rich by working hard, then the government didn't play any part in that. The successful person did it completely by themselves, until the business fails and then yes government is to blame again.
 
So the Obama police state shut down meaupload?

That guy is doing everything he can to lose the youth vote. Everything. Hes leaving no stone unturned.


Look, if megavideo was actually a problem, the private market would use the invisible hand to correct the problem. Why do we need big government to come in and regulate, killing jobs?

Dude, don't come in with that "police state" thing I mean just look at what justice Obama dealt to those in charge of the financial crisis.....oh wait...
 
Would be nice if Gingrich could win SC. That would mean a different candidate has won each of the 3 primaries/caucus'. Can't call Romney an inevitable with those results
 
Dude, don't come in with that "police state" thing I mean just look at what justice Obama dealt to those in charge of the financial crisis.....oh wait...

Youre right, corporate private security state.

I expect Blackwater to be conducting TSA style scans at local mall by 2014.

Would be nice if Gingrich could win SC. That would mean a different candidate has won each of the 3 primaries/caucus'. Can't call Romney an inevitable with those results


Thats what Im hoping for too.

The Buddy can win Florida, and Ron Paul is huge in nevada right?
 
Youre right, corporate private security state.

I expect Blackwater to be conducting TSA style scans at local mall by 2014.




Thats what Im hoping for too.

The Buddy can win Florida, and Ron Paul is huge in nevada right?

Big Libertarian base, but also a big mormon community in Nevada due to its proximity to Utah. Romney is still favored in Nevada at this point but I can't imagine Paul finishing worse than 2nd there
 
I'd like to invite all of my fellow PoliGaffers to #ga. We often discuss politics and similar topics in there. Connect your IRC client to irc.wiicafe.com or irc.browsingtheinternet.com (wiicafe seems to be more reliable, for me at least). If you need help, PM me.

Then, join #ga. Rule #1 (think Fight Club, but not) has been abolished; the floodgates have been opened!

Looking forward to seeing you there.
 
I'd like to invite all of my fellow PoliGaffers to #ga. We often discuss politics and similar topics in there. Connect your IRC client to irc.wiicafe.com or irc.browsingtheinternet.com (wiicafe seems to be more reliable, for me at least). If you need help, PM me.

Then, join #ga. Rule #1 (think Fight Club, but not) has been abolished; the floodgates have been opened!

Looking forward to seeing you there.

I'm usually idling in there, but it would make a great debate watching venue!


How do you guys even stomach a Republican debate? Especially with this candidate field.

Let PoliGAF hold you tight, live and in primetime.
 
Youre right, corporate private security state.

I expect Blackwater to be conducting TSA style scans at local mall by 2014.

Wow, and look at what pops up on my news feed an hour later....


The Department of Defense and the New York Police Department (NYPD) are developing a remote controlled device that could detect if individuals are carrying concealed firearms or explosives.

...

Although the current range of the electronic frisking device is limited, developers are working to expand its reach to 75 feet, meaning police could begin electronically scanning citizens without their knowledge or consent. That possibility has raised concerns with civil libertarians like NYCLU's Donna Lieberman, who told Fox:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/nyc-police-developing-electronic-frisking-device-171749275.html
 
Wait just a second, everybody knows the point of Mitt's taxes and getting to see them isn't because anybody thinks there's something illegal, right?

It's to point out that he pays less taxes than the dude who washes your car! He pays less taxes than you! That's the point. Nobody thinks he's doing anything illegal--they think he's doing something immoral. And seeing the taxes puts the lie to the system, and you bet your ass that tax rate on carried interest is going up in the next 4 years, double taxation be damned.


It is not 'immoral' to follow the rules. Mitt is doing nothing different than what all of us do and try to use every tax break they can to pay as little as possible. It's his huge pile of money that gives him more leverage than the average joe.
 
Just watched last night's debate. It's interesting to see how Romney is a fantastic speaker right up until someone challenges him. And then he falters, stumbles, mumbles, meanders and gets an odd flush of passive-aggressive-aggressive against his opponent which is a complete u-turn from his otherwise cool and calm package.

Some might say that his past successes and positions meant that he was never abruptly challenged on personal issues so he doesn't know how to handle the stress. But that's odd because he's been in politics for a decent amount of time now and should have shed that easy-to-fluster mind set. Personally, I think he just doesn't understand why everyone gives him as hard of a time as he's having winning that nomination, and he knows it has much to do with him Mormonism. Jon Stewart is so right, Mitt Romney is the purest form of the Republican dream, such that it's nothing short of baffling for gopers to demure the sight of its crystal creation.

Which makes me wonder, is Mitt Romney the Republican Frankenstein Monster, a creation distilled with the perfect visual and verbal cues of its creator, that its result is so ghastly that it must be cast aside. Will the Republicans finally begin to question the validity of their economic prowess? Or is it simply that Mitt's religion is too acidic for the party?
 
I think that the Republicans are being really strategically stupid on the long run (15-20 years) in talking bad about illegal immigration. The Hispanic population is growing rapidly, and stats like Florida, Texas do have significant Latino population which could tip these stats to the democrats in a presidential elections in the future.
 
Which makes me wonder, is Mitt Romney the Republican Frankenstein Monster, a creation distilled with the perfect visual and verbal cues of its creator, that its result is so ghastly that it must be cast aside. Will the Republicans finally begin to question the validity of their economic prowess? Or is it simply that Mitt's religion is too acidic for the party?

I wonder if this has any to do with Romney's wealth and privileged upbringing. It does not seem as if he was raised in an environment where his beliefs or worldview were either questioned or threatened. His was and is a life of extreme wealth and excess, and except for minor bumps (like his 1994 lost to Kennedy) he has the air of a man who is used to getting his way. He seems incapable of trench battles, looks uncomfortable issuing face-to-face criticisms in debates and appears to lose his composure easily.

In some respects he reminds me of Gingrich, but without the intellectual snarl or outright sleaze. Neither seem to have a core political identity, instead choosing to support or criticize whatever policies best serve to further their careers.
 
The difference between Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax return:

Obams - Was being asked to provide proof of citizenship in a way few (if any) other presidential candidates were asked.
Mittens - Is being asked to provide financial documentation which every single presidential candidate has done in the modern era.

Obams - Largely ignored the calls for his birth certificate and when asked directly he handled it in a calm stern fashion.
Mittens - Became a complete stammering mess on multiple occasions when asked about the release of his tax returns even though a blind man could see the questions coming a mile away.

Obams - Outside of wild conspiracies from the fringes, there was never any questionable details uncovered. No embarrassing info. Nothing to make you say, "Ah, that's why he didn't want to release it right away".
Mittens - We're already finding out that he's paid a very low income tax rate and that he has funds in the Cayman Islands. Meaning, there's already evidence why he wants to keep this stuff under wraps.


That said, I agree liberals need to be careful not to get conspiratorial on what's in Romney's tax returns. It's not that he did anything illegal. It's just his tax returns (especially if it goes back several years) will show how rich guys game the system. That in itself is pretty damning when the mood of the country has shifted to questioning economic inequality.


You missed one:

Being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be President so asking for a birth certificate is looking for proof of that requirement. Revealing your taxes is not and really just serves for political fodder.

And since John King pressed the issue, saying that it is "tradition" and Romney's father released 12 years of tax returns, I look forward to him asking the same thing of Obama about his academic records, which is also pretty much tradition.
 
LOL.

Colbert on Morning Joe. He comes in and is immediately greeted by a supporter with a "Colbert" sign who says she will be voting for Herman Cain. Mission accomplished!
 
You missed one:

Being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be President so asking for a birth certificate is looking for proof of that requirement. Revealing your taxes is not and really just serves for political fodder.

And since John King pressed the issue, saying that it is "tradition" and Romney's father released 12 years of tax returns, I look forward to him asking the same thing of Obama about his academic records, which is also pretty much tradition.
The fact Obama's mother was an American citizen is all the proof that should have been needed, or are we questioning his parentage now?
 
You missed one:

Being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be President so asking for a birth certificate is looking for proof of that requirement. Revealing your taxes is not and really just serves for political fodder.

And since John King pressed the issue, saying that it is "tradition" and Romney's father released 12 years of tax returns, I look forward to him asking the same thing of Obama about his academic records, which is also pretty much tradition.

Is there a Conservative in this thread that can contribute without making my skin crawl?
 
I saw part of the debate and I'm curious; what's this elite media that's protecting Obama? Where is this "liberal" media I keep hearing about? It seems to me that talk radio is dominated by right wing radio. You have fox news, who is watched by a lot more people than CNN or MSNBC. ABC, CBS, and NBC don't really have very strong news shows.

Is it just that some of the facts being brought up are things the candidates don't want to talk about, or do facts have a left leaning slant?
 
You missed one:

Being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be President so asking for a birth certificate is looking for proof of that requirement. Revealing your taxes is not and really just serves for political fodder.

And since John King pressed the issue, saying that it is "tradition" and Romney's father released 12 years of tax returns, I look forward to him asking the same thing of Obama about his academic records, which is also pretty much tradition.

Obama, or any other representatives' GPA doesn't really seem as relevant as a person in power, who has the ability to make economic policy that is DRASTICALLY slanted in their favor. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see where someone stands with their financials when they're in the position to create lasting monetary policy, and the can help control the economic trajectory of this nation and the hundreds of millions of people in it.

So, yeah, academic records and financial records aren't even remotely close to the same thing. In other words, shut the fuck up, Kosmo.
 
I saw part of the debate and I'm curious; what's this elite media that's protecting Obama? Where is this "liberal" media I keep hearing about? It seems to me that talk radio is dominated by right wing radio. You have fox news, who is watched by a lot more people than CNN or MSNBC. ABC, CBS, and NBC don't really have very strong news shows.

Is it just that some of the facts being brought up are things the candidates don't want to talk about, or do facts have a left leaning slant?
I think ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. do get more viewers than cable networks (by virtue of not needing to pay for cable to watch them), so there's that. But you're right, the 'liberal media' is just a conservative meme that's been used to maximum effectiveness to discredit any station that doesn't tow the conservative line. The problem is the other cable networks themselves have fallen victim to it and have now hitched their wagon to some silly notion of 'neutrality' in an effort to shed the liberal media label. CNN is probably the worst in this respect.

As Colbert would say, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
 
I understand why he's hesitant to release the tax documents, but why exactly is his tax rate so low? I don't even know what these guys do for a living to be making so much money.
 
I saw part of the debate and I'm curious; what's this elite media that's protecting Obama? Where is this "liberal" media I keep hearing about? It seems to me that talk radio is dominated by right wing radio. You have fox news, who is watched by a lot more people than CNN or MSNBC. ABC, CBS, and NBC don't really have very strong news shows.

Is it just that some of the facts being brought up are things the candidates don't want to talk about, or do facts have a left leaning slant?

It's just the victimhood a large part of the Republican party likes to play. It's brilliant, actually. In Newt's case especially. Think about it. If he got the crowed and the Republican base all riled up about how the "liberal media" is trying to tear him and the majority of Republicans down, how do you think the base will react if the media tries to bring up Newt's ex-wife?
 
Wait just a second, everybody knows the point of Mitt's taxes and getting to see them isn't because anybody thinks there's something illegal, right?

It's to point out that he pays less taxes than the dude who washes your car! He pays less taxes than you! That's the point. Nobody thinks he's doing anything illegal--they think he's doing something immoral. And seeing the taxes puts the lie to the system, and you bet your ass that tax rate on carried interest is going up in the next 4 years, double taxation be damned.

EXACTLY. In a political climate where there is real outrage at income inequality, this is a HUGE deal. So of course he doesn't want to release his tax return. He'll get fleeced. All that bullshit where he was like "I know what it's like to struggle, and what it's like to worry you're going to get fired" goes right out the window when people see, on paper, in plain english, how much money he has.

People pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy when a large chunk of the wealthy already pay less than the average American is a big fucking deal. Then, you have the perceived presidential front runner for the GOP saying "Hey, I want to eliminate capital gains taxes, because it will help middle america!". We all know that won't help middle america or anyone who doesn't have investments. It would help the rich, who are already paying less in taxes as a percentage than the average American.

What's worse is that a guy like Romney would stand to gain TREMENDOUSLY from capital gains going away. THAT is why this guy's financials are important. If Romney wins the White House, he is in prime position to enact fiscal policy that would beneft him tremendously while harming our country's financial structure, and harming the average american by reducing government services etc. Idiots like Kosmo and the like demanding academic records are either stupid, or blatantly dishonest if they don't understand why this is an issue and why Romney is trying to dodge it.
 
Obama, or any other representatives' GPA doesn't really seem as relevant as a person in power, who has the ability to make economic policy that is DRASTICALLY slanted in their favor. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see where someone stands with their financials when they're in the position to create lasting monetary policy, and the can help control the economic trajectory of this nation and the hundreds of millions of people in it.

So, yeah, academic records and financial records aren't even remotely close to the same thing. In other words, shut the fuck up, Kosmo.

We all know the motivation behind the request for Obama's academic records.
 
I can't believe Newt might get away with his infidelity/open marriage issue. If Newt were a GAFer, and he made TWO threads about how he was going to leave his wives because they had cancer and MS, and he'd been cheating on them besides, conservative- and liberal-GAF would howl for his banning. He cheated on his 2nd wife FOR SIX YEARS! And then asked if it was okay that he keep his mistress! How is that not the vilest of acts for a family-values voter?

The man found God.

All sins prior to his revelation are immediately forgiven.
 
Yep. Ignore stellar performance while at Harvard Law School, and focus on underwhelming undergraduate grades to bitch about affirmative action.

It seems that Presidents of recent vintage have released their academic records, though. That's not to defend the dog-whistling that's involved in this case, but there is precedent in that.
 
Supreme Court rules Congress can re-copyright public domain works

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ress-can-re-copyright-public-domain-works.ars

Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 6-2 ruling, the court ruled that just because material enters the public domain, it is not “territory that works may never exit.” (PDF)

The top court was ruling on a petition by a group of orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers and film archivists who urged the justices to reverse an appellate court that ruled against the group, which has relied on artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods.

They claimed that re-copyrighting public works would breach the speech rights of those who are now using those works without needing a license. There are millions of decades-old works at issue. Some of the well-known ones include H.G. Wells’ Things to Come; Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and the musical compositions of Igor Fyodorovich Stravinsky.

The court, however, was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Ginsburg said “some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright.” But the top court, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important.

For a variety of reasons, the works at issue, which are foreign and produced decades ago, became part of the public domain in the United States but were still copyrighted overseas. In 1994, Congress adopted legislation to move the works back into copyright, so U.S. policy would comport with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention.

In dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito said the legislation goes against the theory of copyright and “does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work.” Copyright, they noted, was part of the Constitution to promote the arts and sciences.

The legislation, Breyer wrote, “bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works in the American public domain. At the same time, the statute inhibits the dissemination of those works, foreign works published abroad after 1923, of which there are many millions, including films, works of art, innumerable photographs, and, of course, books — books that (in the absence of the statute) would assume their rightful places in computer-accessible databases, spreading knowledge throughout the world.”

Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, called the decision “unfortunate” and said it “suggests Congress is not required to pay particularly close attention to the interests of the public when it passes copyright laws.”

The majority, however, rebuffed charges that a decision in favor of Congress’ move would amount to affording lawmakers the right to legislate perpetual copyright terms.

“In aligning the United States with other nations bound by the Berne Convention, and thereby according equitable treatment to once disfavored foreign authors, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights,” Ginsburg wrote.

It’s not the first time the Supreme Court has approved the extension of copyrights. The last time was in 2002, when it upheld Congress’ move to extend copyright from the life of an author plus 50 years after death to 70 years after death.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Lawrence Golan, told the high court that it will not longer be able to perform Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony and Peter and the Wolf, or Shostakovich’s Symphony 14, Cello Concerto because of licensing fees.

Not really sure how I feel about this...
 
Considering conservative outrage at the Supreme Court referencing instances of international law in their judgements, I'm a bit surprised by how that vote ended up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom