Well, neither do the professional pollsters. They gave Romney a "win" in Iowa by a slim margin. Even though they were wrong, Santorum didn't get to benefit from the mojo. What's your point again, Loki?
Printable View
Well, neither do the professional pollsters. They gave Romney a "win" in Iowa by a slim margin. Even though they were wrong, Santorum didn't get to benefit from the mojo. What's your point again, Loki?
Um, the win was announced by the GOP of Iowa; they then backtracked. :bored: Seeing that you're responding to a strawman with something that has no relevance to my post, why exactly are you posting this?
Because you're trying to lay blame on the media....instead of the GOP.
I don't buy that. Rick "please don't google me" Santorum is one gigantic walking fart joke. Or anal sex joke, whichever way you want to look at the particulars. Now, come election time Rick "please don't google me" Santorum has to project an image of a statesman, if for nothing else than for future glory and a possible veep vetting (the fundies really don't like Mittens). When Rick "please don't google my name" Santorum gets hit in the face with glitter, instead of say an all-american apple pie, people who haven't googled his name might wonder why glitter? And once they go through that looking glass, they're liable to find not only all the gas-the-faggots-stuff, but also bringing home the dead baby that really wasn't aborted, for reals yo, the fact that Rick "please don't google me" Santorum is one gigantic walking anal sex joke, the works. I assume you were similarly aghast when "libruls" speculated on the gayness of Michele's husband?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
And you don't laugh at immature jokes? Dude, lighten up :(
So you think the arab spring could have been solved with words?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Blame? He's talking about the media because the immediate reason for his post was CNN reporting their exit polls before the polling places were closed, which has the potential to change results. How the GOP originally called the results of the Iowa caucus isn't at all related. You just conflate the two because they're both addressing elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Any idea when this started? I remember that in 2008 CNN made it a point not to release any results until all the polls in the state were closed, even if only a handful of polling stations were open. Is it just their desperation to stay relevant by providing results first?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Maybe if you compare America to dictatorships enough times, you'll be able to convince yourself that the parallel holds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
whoosh
Glitter twat = protesters getting shot ...m'kayQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I was using the gay war thread as a bridge. I figured it was a stronger connection than your blood comparison.
I think OG is onto something with the Arab Spring comparison - just not in the way he thinks.
OG thinks his side has to be right, so anything goes - including assault. The dictators supporters thought their side was right so anything goes.
Opposition leaders like Santorum think their views are right so peacefully speak and try and get support, despite being attacked for it. Ditto in Egypt etc.
Of course it's a stretch but closer to reality than the garbage that Arab Spring = assaulting people is OK.
peacefully speaking would be an opinion when the message involves hatred and oppression
EDIT:
As far as I've seen, none of the glitter protestors have been charged with assault, or battery. If fact the ones that started this tangent weren't even arrested :noob:
What's the hate speech legislation like in the UK? I'm fairly certain Santorum would be in far more legal hot water here than, say, Halla-Aho, who's a very controversial figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
IANAL but it generally here takes a complaint from the victim in order to get an arrest or charge. Santorum may not want to complain (politicians generally don't, the negative publicity they get if they do just isn't worth it) but had someone been assaulted with glitter because they were gay I suspect you'd be singing a different tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
.
:) <---Randy
arresting and charging people with crimes are two totally different acts, and no, police do not need the permission of the victim to do either (but especially with arrests).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
america also has hate crime laws that make your flip claim moot.
Ron Paul is a little more sparkly now, last one to get nailed too.
Can't wait until they go after Obama for being against gay marriage. :rolleyes:
Sterile, immaculate, rational, fabulous
I love how this man manages to link together democrats/liberals/people left of center/homosexuals/pedophiles/nazis :bulb:
Perhaps the comparison to the Arab Spring is more apt than it initially seems, in that light >_< :p
I'm even more impressed by his iPad/healthcare analysis, where he points out the absurdity of buying $900 iPads while complaining about having to spend $900 on healthcare. I didn't know iPads were that expensive or that ubiquitous among American households, or that they were exchanged every year, or that the average household paid eg. $900 for healthcare. I thought it was more like $9000 per family per year. I dunno man, I think this guy is making shit up. And I looked at some things he's said and it's like he doesn't even know the first thing about the drug industry.
I think this guy has a real gift though. I mean, people say Obama is a good orator, but he's never (to my knowledge) been able to tie together buttsex, child-abuse, bestiality, incest, polygamy and various other concepts listed above in such an informative way. I feel I now understand that the US people have no right to privacy, because it is not granted by the constitution.
why are people voting for this guy
Which totally makes sense given how he supports removing the government from the institution of marriage entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Really? Because I thought he was fine with letting state governments meddle all they like in the institution of marriage.
according to the article I pulled that from (no sound at work), this glitter attack wasn't about gay rights :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
"Charlie McAwesome" was heard shooting "housing and healthcare are human rights, not privileges."
Co-opting faggot symbols is not cool guysQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That said, if entering the US is a privilege, surely living there is as well?
He personally supports removing the government from the institution, but he's a Constitutionalist which means he wouldn't want to deprive states of their 10th Amendment rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In short, he wants the government out, but he wants it done legally; it falls outside of the constitutional purview of the federal government.
Which is to say that he'd nothing, and gay marriage would be banned in most states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Welcome to a constitutional Republic? If you want to pass a constitutional amendment, you've got my support. If you want to pass a state amendment, you've got my support. As near as I can tell you'd have his too. Circumventing the law because it's convenient is great when you agree with it -- not so much when you fall foul of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, but to summarise his position on marriage, he is perfectly fine with letting state governments meddle all they like in the institution of marriage, including enforcing his own views on what marriage is (ie. between one man and one woman) even if it leads to unequal treatment of gay couples. I only have the wikipedia article to go on, and from that article I get the vague impression that he'd gladly vote for all the DOMAs and Prop8s that come his way. So, if the glitter assault had really been about gay marriage, and if we accept glitter as a legitimate mode of expression, he would in fact have been an appropriate target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red