Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Except if they threatened them with libel...the UK and Australia really need to redo their draconian libel laws.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Except if they threatened them with libel...the UK and Australia really need to redo their draconian libel laws.
RoninChaos
Member
Not even a hate smash? What if she yelled "I'M A WITCH!" during the middle of it?
So now the Romney camp is trying to label the President as a liar in the lead up to the debates. They have finally wised up and realized that saying you can like the President but still not vote for him is a weak message. But now that they've gone full shitbag they are also turning off the independents and undecideds they need to actually win.
RoninChaos
Member
Ehhh, okay maybe I would. But I wouldn't like it! She's so stupid...
I don't want to derail the thread further, so I'ma just say this; pussy does not have an IQ score.
But!
Your standards might.
Till beer is involved.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYIN'.
speculawyer
Member
Rob Portman, you fucking liar. Never mind getting the timeline backwards. You claimed that the embassy said "we apologize". They did no such thing. Here is there statement:
If you think that is an apology then Mitt Romney is the apologist in chief. He said pretty much the same thing:
That's actually the correct answer, I agree! Though not too big a fan of beer, however any alcohol will do. And to tolerate Christine...well, all I have to say is, sorry liver.
Black Mamba
Member
Economist Bruce Bartlett (who worked for both Bush's and Reagan as a supply-sider) on Romney's tax plan.
(not exact quote)
"It sounds like something his political advisers came up with in the middle of the night; I'd be surprised if his economic advisers had anything to do with it."
Ice. Cold.
(not exact quote)
"It sounds like something his political advisers came up with in the middle of the night; I'd be surprised if his economic advisers had anything to do with it."
Ice. Cold.
But Mitt Romney was always a fan of this strategy, as he showed during one of the Republican Primary debates, when he told John King, "You ask the questions you want - I give the answers I want."
I'm constantly amazed how inept the Romney campaign is. I knew he was a crappy candidate from the get-go but still, this is worse than even I expected.
Oh well, I guess the next move is wondering who will control of congress. It's starting to look good for the Democrats in the house. Maybe we'll see an all Democratic WH and Senate/House.
Oh well, I guess the next move is wondering who will control of congress. It's starting to look good for the Democrats in the house. Maybe we'll see an all Democratic WH and Senate/House.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/200...lin-mccain-and-palin-vice-presidential-debate
I swear to god Romney's campaign is being run by the exact same people and the exact same mindset as McCain's. The handlers' mindset seems to be "Our tactics worked great, it was the PEOPLE that were the problem."
Jesus and I thought Rob Portman would have been a good choice for Romney. He looked like an idiot during that interview. UH UH UH UH UH
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Romney's relationship to some of his economic advisers is strange. I have no idea what fairly respectable economists like Hubbard and Mankiw would have to gain from associating with Romney, nor what Romney has to gain (besides maybe some legitimacy) from these advisers if he is not actually going to use some of their ideas. It's like they're left over vestiges from a moderate Romney ticket that no longer exists.
There is objective math to prove that the more he tries to act like a normal person, the weirder he becomes. He is Uncanny Allen.
Black Mamba
Member
Hubbard hasn't been respected for a while.
Mankiw, however, I can't figure out. He's even been forced to flip-flop on things he believes just to stay true to the Romney campaign.
I kinda like em thick, so, would still smash.. as long as she didn't talk.
But yeah.. dumb as a box of rocks.
thezerofire
Banned
Didn't he quote Mankiw and Mankiw said Romney hadn't read his works?
What is PoliGAF's opinion on an Wisconsin Judge tossing most of the union reform Gov. Scott Walker passed? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...h-of-wis-collective-bargaining-law/?hpt=hp_t1
Good news. But the State Supreme Court will probably overturn that ruling, unfortunately.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Unfortunately for who? The people have spoken. Democracy at work.
(do I need to switch my avatar yet?)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Agreed. You get what you vote for
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I was wondering if anybody else caught that.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Meh, Modern Family plays it INCREDIBLY safe. It is funny and clean comedy. It is kind hearted and usually ends each episode on an "all-together!" note. Plus it actually is very funny, that helps. I doubt he was pandering there.
The affected workers.
And? If it was upheld, the state judges and state supreme court are either elected outright or appointed by elected legislatures. That's also a part of this wonderful democracy.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
That isn't democracy. That is a republic. Admit it, you only support bureaucrats overturning the will of the people when it coincides with your own ideals.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The GOP welcomes you with open arms!
Unless he happens to be brown, a woman, gay, a muslim, an atheist, or an immigrant.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The idea of electing state supreme court judges is weird to me. I know it's probably easier at the state level to just elect them, but that sort of takes out the appeal of the judicial branch.
It's like Iowa voters being able to throw out the justices because they didn't like how they ruled on gay marriage. They should be able to make those decisions without fear of electoral consequences.
It's like Iowa voters being able to throw out the justices because they didn't like how they ruled on gay marriage. They should be able to make those decisions without fear of electoral consequences.
This only applies for Republicans, of course. Democrats always go beyond what voters intended.
There was also a failed recall. I was happy to defend a vote for recall as a means of punishing Walker for going way beyond what he talked about doing, but Wisconsin got to vote on him again /after/ they saw what he did.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
No, they love the self loathing ones. Especially if you agree to be paraded.
While the situation wasn't that simple, there were also state senate recalls.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Yeah, I just looked more closely at the policies Hubbard was advocating and wasn't too impressed. To his one great benefit he does appear, on occasion, to break from Republican orthodoxy on certain issues. But Mankiw, more than Hubbard, is known for defying party convention, the most notable example of which is his promulgation of the idea that we should tolerate a higher inflation rate. As usual, Krugman had a good take on the alarming tendency of certain economists to risk their reputation on supporting dismal economics:
Simon Wren-Lewis wonders what could have possessed Mankiw and [John] Taylor to sell their souls this way. I won’t pretend to have a full answer. But surely part of it is simply that they have been caught up in the vortex of the broader Romney campaign — a campaign that has made fraudulence part of its standard operating procedure. Remember, Romney spent months castigating President Obama because he “apologizes for America” — something Obama has never, in fact, actually done. Then he spent weeks declaring that Obama has denigrated small business by claiming that businessmen didn’t actually build their own firms — all based on a remark that was clearly about infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Romney’s tax plan is now a demonstrated fraud — big tax cuts for the rich that he claims would be offset by closing loopholes, but the Tax Policy Center has demonstrated that the arithmetic can’t possibly work. He turns out to have been dishonest about when he really left Bain. And on and on.
So this is a campaign that’s all about faking it — fake claims about Obama, fake claims about policy, fake claims about Romney’s personal history.
Is it really surprising, then, that the economists who have decided to lend their names to the campaign have been caught up in this culture of fraud? Maybe some of them were initially reluctant, or thought they could support the campaign with selective renderings of the truth. But the pressure was on to be team players, to give the campaign material it could use — and so, one day, they all ended up putting their names to a report that is just plain dishonest, in ways that can be and have been easily documented.
Who wants to parade around a self-loathing atheist?
Dominican Power
Member
Leave my waifu alone.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Ezra is one of the best to follow for policy.
Apart from that I read Greg Sargent @ plumline
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I think that Klein, Yglasias, and Krugman are interesting and that Greenwald is the disingenuous one, so you probably don't want to listen to me, but if you were inclined at all to follow my suggestions, then I would recommend Jonathan Chait.
Disingenuous is actually the last thing I would use to describe Ezra Klein. He may not be "clever clever" like other commentators, but he's empirically grounded to a much larger degree than is typical among the pundits.
Disingenuous is actually the last thing I would use to describe Ezra Klein. He may not be "clever clever" like other commentators, but he's empirically grounded to a much larger degree than is typical among the pundits.
benjipwns
Banned
Cheers, I've liked some Sargent before.
Wasn't meaning to be too "NOT THIS" but trying to start to set some guidelines so someone might find around it.
But considering you like Chait and dislike Greenwald, I'd like to know more about what "left" types you don't like. :lol
EDIT: I'm not talking about Greenwald's sockpuppets regarding the disingenuous part lol.
That's beyond the pale.
The Librarian
Banned
reggieandTFE
Member
Writers at In these Times and Znet & Alternet write much better articles than those beltway guys, but that might be too far left for you.
benjipwns
Banned
I don't really mind how far left they are, I'm just interested in some people who write outside of the DC type crap. And who can also write rationally and logically.
Far right, etc. is fine too. Just figured GAF would know some good writers on the left at least.
The Klein/Krugman disclaimer was because they're in Wapo/NYT and thus pretty famous.
Far right, etc. is fine too. Just figured GAF would know some good writers on the left at least.
The Klein/Krugman disclaimer was because they're in Wapo/NYT and thus pretty famous.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/14/why_romney_will_win_115452.html
by notable pollster Dick Morris
check the link for the rest. you won't be sorry!
by notable pollster Dick Morris
check the link for the rest. you won't be sorry!
Klein is very useful for getting a good summary of a policy or a political development. I've seldom seen him offer any impressive insights, and most of his posts are just distilling an expert's work into layman's terms, but he's pretty good at doing that.
I'm not really a fan of the rest of the Wonkblog staff though. Surprisingly amatuer hour-ish for a major newspaper.
I'm not really a fan of the rest of the Wonkblog staff though. Surprisingly amatuer hour-ish for a major newspaper.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
lol. I thought pollsters were using 2010 models though?
benjipwns
Banned
Isn't this the paper that hired anti-conservatives to cover a "conservative beat" twice*?
Not that any paper should have such stupidity.
*Might be thinking of two separate papers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll