• 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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

ivysaur12

Banned
You all should follow GOPTeens on twitter. It's the one of the best parody accounts out there.

@GOPTeens: #Teens: Is #ChrisBrown a #NoGoodThug or just #InNeedOfAHug?

@GOPTeens: #Teens: Were #PaulRyan's remarks #racist? Or is the #InnerCity just racist against getting #jobs?

@GOPTeens: #JoinTheConvo! What #books do you think YOUR #school should #ban?
 
I get depressed when I remember that inmates at Gitmo get better medical care than the majority of Americans. BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.
 

Trouble

Banned
You all should follow GOPTeens on twitter. It's the one of the best parody accounts out there.

#Teens: Is @SenJohnMcCain a #traitor or just a #hater?

ZTudctC.gif
 
How are people not able to see through him? He's a joke in a thin veil of credibility given to him by his father.

He can attract independents with his views on pot and surveillance and can run to the left of Hillary on issues like foreign policy, and he's been quiet on the more divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion, though I expect he'll pay lip service to them in primary.

I keep saying this, but Rand is more formidable than you think in 2016. He could really portray himself as a change agent against the tired politics of Hillary Clinton.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
He can attract independents with his views on pot and surveillance and can run to the left of Hillary on issues like foreign policy, and he's been quiet on the more divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion, though I expect he'll pay lip service to them in primary.

I keep saying this, but Rand is more formidable than you think in 2016. He could really portray himself as a change agent against the tired politics of Hillary Clinton.

You say this, while ignoring his faults. He's held 4 different positions on the same issue in a week, he is unable to deal with any sort of scandals or criticism, and he's done nothing to show his positions on gay rights, abortion, and civil rights are going to be any different than his father's.

The second anyone digs up anything, and I do mean anything, on him he will implode spectacularly. He couldn't handle a non-scandal with the easiest solution ever (tell the truth, apologize and promise to never do it again), how is he going to handle something real? He'll melt under the media scrutiny of a national campaign like a snowman in July.

He's done absolutely nothing to show he's anything more than a guy who got where he is due to who his father is. He's a pale imitation of Ron Paul.

EDIT: Also, he can't portray himself as an agent of change. He'll be shilling the exact same shit that messed up the economy in the first place. Even Cuomo would be able to beat him there.
 
He can attract independents with his views on pot and surveillance and can run to the left of Hillary on issues like foreign policy, and he's been quiet on the more divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion, though I expect he'll pay lip service to them in primary.

I keep saying this, but Rand is more formidable than you think in 2016. He could really portray himself as a change agent against the tired politics of Hillary Clinton.
Nope, he'd attract non voters who lean republican with those issues. Foreign policy isn't going to be an issue in 2016 (both wars will be over and he's not going to win saying he won't attack those that are planning to attack us) .

And yes hell portray change by advocating the stock Republican economic agenda, low taxes, less regulation, cut safety net programs. The same policy his party always runs and loses on. He also has a horrid record with minorities (that plus his explaining black history to Howard). His record on the civil rights bill will decimate him with those communities. He holds the stock republican view on their right to choose and doesn't support government action to ensure their equal rights.

Your thesis is he'll ride disaffected white marijuana/NSA issue voters to success? There aren't that many reddit users in the US
 

Owzers

Member
Also, can I just take a minute to bitch about how Paul Ryan managed to once again bamboozle the mainstream media into thinking he's a deeply "serious" "thinker". Seriously, being a Republican politician has gotta be one of the easiest professions in the world. Think about it. After the election, the boy genius realizes that he's got a reputation for wanting to use poor people for fertilizer and decides he needs to fix that perception. So he decides to go on this poverty tour to prove that he's trying to be more connected to the filthy poors. And what happens? Does he learn ANYTHING from this? No! He's just as much of a Randian twat as he was before, if not worse.

But that's not what you hear from the MSM. Despite the fact that he still wants to tear the social safety net to shreds, idiots on the Washington Post can't help but gush over the fact that he's giving the IMPRESSION that he cares, which as we all know is even more important than, you know, actually showing you care.

full stomach, empty soul.
 

Trouble

Banned
I'm sure people that live on ramen and Chef Boyardee would love a hungry man dinner.

I've had all 3 and I'd take the Ramen first, Chef Boyardee second, Hungry Man dead last.

The trick to instant Ramen is to throw some protein in there, poach an egg in the boiling water, or some cooked chicken or the like. Then you toss in a ton of chili sauce. That shit got me through college.
 
Your thesis is he'll ride disaffected white marijuana/NSA issue voters to success? There aren't that many reddit users in the US

Yup. Rand will win the all important "upper middle class white males who have no other problems in their life, so they kiss posters of Edward Snowden at night" demographic.
 

kingkitty

Member
I never noticed this before but at 6am eastern, Fox News plays the national anthem, along with the most patriotic images I've ever seen. God Bless Fox News.
 
Lol Andrew Sullivan defending Ryan and the racist trash Bell Curve once again (he had a history of this and put the bell curve on the cover of the new republic). Positively citing Clinton using another Murray book during welfare reform (that's supposed to insulate it from being racist and horrible policy?)

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/03/14/the-smearing-of-ryan-as-a-racist/

The thesis of the Bell Curve was that genetically smarter people would be more likely to partner with eachother, creating a kind of high IQ overclass and imbedding class structure. The problem with it was the inability to prove that IQ was really genetic in the sense that Murray described. IQ was "heritable" to population groups, but not to individuals. Its also impossible to define and measure intelligence without creating all sorts of biases. People who call the bell curve "racist trash" don't even know what it is. The section on race was small and featured a table showing minorities scored lower in IQ tests than asians and whites.

It was wrong, but not because it was racist. It just featured bad ideas about intelligence and genetics.
 

Chichikov

Member
Oh, I forgot to add, "and answered yes in that poll about whether whites are the real victims of racism" that was posted a few days ago.
Nah man, I once went to a Gang Starr show and one dude was like "huh, I'm surprised you into that type of music" which is as bad as slavery.
 
He can attract independents with his views on pot and surveillance and can run to the left of Hillary on issues like foreign policy, and he's been quiet on the more divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion, though I expect he'll pay lip service to them in primary.

I keep saying this, but Rand is more formidable than you think in 2016. He could really portray himself as a change agent against the tired politics of Hillary Clinton.
I agree. It's also worth noting that he understands grass roots and the internet in a way most GOPers don't. Like Obama he's gonna have the opportunity to blow a lot of people out the water before they know what's happening. And while Ron Paul fans aren't 100% on board, enough are to matter; Ron Paul supporters have completely taken over the Iowa republican board, and they support Rand - there's almost no way he'll lose the state.

He could appeal to young people and be a change agent. Whereas Hillary will be seen as running for a third Obama term. The economy is worse, inequality is worse, etc... it won't be hard for Paul to make that argument.

But Paul will ultimately lose due to his past being exposed and due to GOP sabatage. He has palled around with racists for years, his comments on the CRA will be discussed, his radical statements about abolishing the education department, etc. Meanwhile the GOP won't allow a man with principled views on foreign policy to win. He's not a hawk or Obama-esque coward on civil liberties. His campaign will be sabatage IMO.

Walker or Bush will win the nomination.
 

Spider from Mars

tap that thorax
From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."
Made it about 10 minutes before I had to turn it off. Christ
 
He can attract independents with his views on pot and surveillance and can run to the left of Hillary on issues like foreign policy, and he's been quiet on the more divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion, though I expect he'll pay lip service to them in primary.

I keep saying this, but Rand is more formidable than you think in 2016. He could really portray himself as a change agent against the tired politics of Hillary Clinton.

He hasn't talked about it much but he is on record as supporting a personhood amendment . . . something that couldn't even pass in Mississippi.


The Pauls are fake libertarians. They are libertarian on economics, guns, and foreign policy but they are NOT libertarian on abortion, immigration, separation of church & state, etc.

But whatever, I think Rand's attempts at the presidency will be as successful as his father's. The military-industrial complex will not support him.
 

Tamanon

Banned
I would love for Rand Paul to be President just to crush the dreams of his supporters who think he's any different than a regular Republican. Especially with a Republican legislature!

But I also don't want the US to suck, so let's not do that.
 
What does Scott Brown stand to gain from running for Senate in New Hampshire?

Who's his campaign advisor, PD?

A lot of people from MA live in NH so they don't have to pay the taxes. I'm hoping Shaheen can beat him badly enough to end his political career or turn him into the next Alan Keyes.
 
I lost of people from MA live in NH so they don't have to pay the taxes. I'm hoping Shaheen can beat him badly enough to end his political career or turn him into the next Alan Keyes.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's already preparing to run for president.

Independently of whether he wins New Hampshire or not.

I've heard the saying "Every senator wakes up and sees a future president in the mirror" but Jesus this guy takes it to a new level of delusional.
 

pigeon

Banned
He can attract independents with his views on pot and surveillance and can run to the left of Hillary on issues like foreign policy, and he's been quiet on the more divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion, though I expect he'll pay lip service to them in primary.

I keep saying this, but Rand is more formidable than you think in 2016. He could really portray himself as a change agent against the tired politics of Hillary Clinton.

I really have to agree with B-Dubs and APK here (and Weigel: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/03/the_over_rating_of_rand_paul_2016.html). Rand Paul is, if anything, even worse at handling negative media attention than Ron Paul was, and has, if anything, even more damning ties to white supremacists (the original American libertarians). He's only gotten away with it because he's a Senator in Kentucky. As a presidential candidate? He'll go down faster than the value of a Confederate dollar.
 
http://www.telcoproductions.com/Flipside.shtml

The Conservative version of the Daily Show is coming...and is unsurprisingly extremely unfunny.

I tried. Yeah, it just doesn't work. It comes off as mean-spirited. Maybe it can work but they just still can't quite find the right tone.


But, it is really hard to do. How do you make crapping on poor people funny? Mocking Harrison Ford for being hypocritical on climate change was a good idea of something to attack but they way handled it didn't work.
 

Chichikov

Member
I tried. Yeah, it just doesn't work. It comes off as mean-spirited. Maybe it can work but they just still can't quite find the right tone.


But, it is really hard to do. How do you make crapping on poor people funny? Mocking Harrison Ford for being hypocritical on climate change was a good idea of something to attack but they way handled it didn't work.
Conservatism can at time be at odds with the idea of political humor which often take an anti establishment, anti conventional slant, but you can have good right wing humor, look at South Park, now it's true they're not truly right wing, but some of their bits attacks the issue from a strictly right wing angle. Have you played the stick of truth? the Al Gore bits are fucking hilarious.
The problem with shows like this is not that their political slant, but how they are conceived. It's not like someone said "I got this funny idea, and since I'm a conservative it will have a right wing slant" but that some suit said "we must have right wing humor show, write me some right wing jokes".
That just doesn't tend to work all that well.
 
The thesis of the Bell Curve was that genetically smarter people would be more likely to partner with eachother, creating a kind of high IQ overclass and imbedding class structure. The problem with it was the inability to prove that IQ was really genetic in the sense that Murray described. IQ was "heritable" to population groups, but not to individuals. Its also impossible to define and measure intelligence without creating all sorts of biases. People who call the bell curve "racist trash" don't even know what it is. The section on race was small and featured a table showing minorities scored lower in IQ tests than asians and whites.

It was wrong, but not because it was racist. It just featured bad ideas about intelligence and genetics.
Even Murray has walked away from his conclusions in the bell curve. Its horrible science and yes racist. I call it racist trash because its part of the constant attempt going back to eugentics and phrenology to 'prove' minorities are inferior, stupid, backwards and not worthy of help. The study of racial genetic differences in intelligence in and of itself is racist because both race and intelligence are both nebulous concepts. Only used by people to arrive at their wanted conclusions (minorities are stupid).

There isn't any science that can prove different races are any less intelligent than another. And that's what the bell curve did. You can't say it didn't claim genitic differences when this is a direct quote:
"It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences."
. His hedging saying environment might too play apart doesn't excuse the racist and unsupported assertion its genetic. There just is no evidence for that. Its racist pseudo science

The bell curves argument was differences in education, poverty, success weren't the result of policy but rather inherent differences. Its BS and part of an attempt for certain people to vilify and excuse the vile and inexcusable treatment of many Americans by virtue of the culture, race or national origin
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I tried. Yeah, it just doesn't work. It comes off as mean-spirited. Maybe it can work but they just still can't quite find the right tone.


But, it is really hard to do. How do you make crapping on poor people funny? Mocking Harrison Ford for being hypocritical on climate change was a good idea of something to attack but they way handled it didn't work.

There's plenty of room to satirize an incompetent government grown too large, supported by elitist rich people that think they're saving the world by simply buying trendy eco-products and voting democrat.

I just think conservative comedians like these are just not good at comedy, because there isn't an industry to act as a minor league for conservative satirists like there is for liberal ones. I mean I've never seen a guy delivering a monologue as awkwardly as the guy doing the Harrison Ford bit.


Maybe the memo came from Obama.
 
Even Murray has walked away from his conclusions in the bell curve. Its horrible science and yes racist. I call it racist trash because its part of the constant attempt going back to eugentics and phrenology to 'prove' minorities are inferior, stupid, backwards and not worthy of help. The study of racial genetic differences in intelligence in and of itself is racist because both race and intelligence are both nebulous concepts. Only used by people to arrive at their wanted conclusions (minorities are stupid).

There isn't any science that can prove different races are any less intelligent than another. And that's what the bell curve did. You can't say it didn't claim genitic differences when this is a direct quote:. His hedging saying environment might too play apart doesn't excuse the racist and unsupported assertion its genetic. There just is no evidence for that. Its racist pseudo science

The bell curves argument was differences in education, poverty, success weren't the result of policy but rather inherent differences. Its BS and part of an attempt for certain people to vilify and excuse the vile and inexcusable treatment of many Americans by virtue of the culture, race or national origin

Murray never walked away from the book, he defends it to this day, and expanded on its ideas with coming apart. Science can and does measure intelligence in people and other animals, it isn't impossible by any means. Saying people who study these things are automatically racists is ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom