2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

Maybe it is. Still, talking about sex isn't as taboo as it used to be. I point to the success of Sex in the City as one example.

[Asilynne]

You guys are just silly lol

And Blade holy shit *applauds* XD

[Heald]

Maybe it is. Still, talking about sex isn't as taboo as it used to be. I point to the success of Sex in the City as one example.

Sex in the City talks about 3 whores and a donkey having sex, which isn't the same thing as talking about sex.

[DarkestLight]

the horse tells us about their sex..so there's horrid talking involved.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with her face.

[Asilynne]

the horse tells us about their sex..so there's horrid talking involved.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with her face.

She went to the John Kerry school of cosmetology *tying it back into politics* lol

[Blademaster]

Edit: I gotta admit, this is getting a little ridiculous. You know things have gotten out of control when Blade starts insulting you.

Not to get this derailed trainwreck any further off-track than it already is, but is that a compliment pertaining to my becoming calmer and less vehement in Misc. the past several months, or an insult along the lines of "You know you're stupid when the special ed kids are making fun of you."?

[Dark Sage]

I had no idea you were in special ed.

Anyway, I'd like to apologize to Roy to my very inappropriate remarks to him yesterday. Let's just say I was having a bad day, and he wasn't the only person I said things to and now regret. From now on, I hope to discuss things on this forum like a civilized adult, and keep to facts, if I can.

So let's get back on the subject. I'd like to present a professional opinion that I heard today, not mine, but that of Chris Matthews.

He said the following about the GOP:

"A great year to win, they're probably going to lose, in fact, lose by Barry Goldwater dimensions. A wipeout. Is this Rush Limbaugh thing getting them the sense of foreboding in a year they should be winning?"

Matthews went on to say that Limbaugh's statements that have now cost him most of his sponsors and now have the Republicans apologizing for him have left the President unscathed.

"Barack Obama is radiating optimism these days," said Matthews.

[Roy Karrde]

I had no idea you were in special ed.

Anyway, I'd like to apologize to Roy to my very inappropriate remarks to him yesterday. Let's just say I was having a bad day, and he wasn't the only person I said things to and now regret. From now on, I hope to discuss things on this forum like a civilized adult, and keep to facts, if I can.

Its cool man dont worry.

So let's get back on the subject. I'd like to present a professional opinion that I heard today, not mine, but that of Chris Matthews.

He said the following about the GOP:

"A great year to win, they're probably going to lose, in fact, lose by Barry Goldwater dimensions. A wipeout. Is this Rush Limbaugh thing getting them the sense of foreboding in a year they should be winning?"

Matthews went on to say that Limbaugh's statements that have now cost him most of his sponsors and now have the Republicans apologizing for him have left the President unscathed.

"Barack Obama is radiating optimism these days," said Matthews.

You know Matthews has always been a shill for Obama so I would take what he says with as much grain of salt as say Sean Hannity.

On the whole issue with Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, I think Democrats need to worry about overplaying their hand on this. Limbaugh being sincere or not did apologize. How did Sandra respond today on the View? “I don’t think that a statement like this issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he’s under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support,”

Not accepting it and moving on like a everyday person begins to put the problems back on her. And lets make it clear, Sandra is not a normal everyday person. She portrayed herself as a 20 something college student, but in reality is a early 30s feminist activist that went to this college only to promote feminist causes. Her unwillingness to accept Rush’s apology underscores that she’s far from a naive private individual who unexpectedly found herself at the center of a national controversy. She made it clear by her remarks on the View that she’s prepared to stoke this controversy as long as she derives a benefit from it.

If Democrats wish to continue to support this activist, then they can, but just like the occupy movement, they are supporting a unknown and possible radical element that can become more of a hindrance than a help.

[Dark Sage]

The thing is Roy, Rush crossed the line, and used his show to make a personal attack. Some would say that it was slander, which is a crime.

And I've read his apology. He seemed to use it to emphasize the point he was originally trying to make, which is all the proof I need that he was only trying to keep the sponsors he has left.

At last count, nne of them have left, including his biggest, AOL. If you ask me, he's crossed the same line that Don Imus did.

That's the thing with shock jocks. They say controversial things, absurd things, and even offensive things. That's they're job. But there's a fine line that they can never cross. Once they do, they crash, and crash hard.

[Roy Karrde]

The thing is Roy, Rush crossed the line, and used his show to make a personal attack. Some would say that it was slander, which is a crime.

If what he did was slander then be prepared to have alot of liberals in the media brought up on slander charges.

And I've read his apology. He seemed to use it to emphasize the point he was originally trying to make, which is all the proof I need that he was only trying to keep the sponsors he has left.

He also as I wrote, devoted the first half of his show to this. Now it may be genuine, it may not be, but by not accepting the apology it becomes her problem.

At last count, nne of them have left, including his biggest, AOL. If you ask me, he's crossed the same line that Don Imus did.

A: Doesn't AOL also own the Huffington Post? Now if you want to start talking about Libel charges...

B: Then this should show how the issue is dealt with, unlike Don Imus it looks like the stations are sticking with him, and soon the news will blow over.

That's the thing with shock jocks. They say controversial things, absurd things, and even offensive things. That's they're job. But there's a fine line that they can never cross. Once they do, they crash, and crash hard.

But here is the problem, if the Democrats wish to make this where they want to make Limbaugh crash hard, they risk having him become a sympathetic figure. Even the View today was saying that it was wrong for all of his sponsors to be leaving so quickly. Not to mention they run the risk of this activist becoming the story by her continuing to fan the flames.

[Dark Sage]

Rush, I never said I liked the Huffington Post. I heard about this on the CBS Evening News.

We'll see if it blows over or not. But at least this woman attends a prestigious university, and when she graduates, she'll be able to claim that as one reason she has more credibility to her name than the man who called her a slut.

[Roy Karrde]

Rush, I never said I liked the Huffington Post. I heard about this on the CBS Evening News.

I never said you did, I am just saying there are some in the higher ups at AOL who may be doing this for political reasons.

We'll see if it blows over or not. But at least this woman attends a prestigious university, and when she graduates, she'll be able to claim that as one reason she has more credibility to her name than the man who called her a slut.

Except she deserves zero credibility as I already said. She is a feminist activist who decided to join the university to be a activist at the university, not for anything less. She even admitted that before she went to Georgetown she studied their insurance policy to see if contraception was a part of it. She is not some innocent college student in this, but seems more to be, and pardon the term, 'A attention whore'.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, my brother went to Georgetown. Any attacks on the school or its alumni, my family considers very personal.

Even if it turns out that the Birthers are right and I turn against Obama, I'm going not going to take Rush's side here.

Edit: And Rush never says anything to get attention??

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, my brother went to Georgetown. Any attacks on the school or its alumni, my family considers very personal.

Even if it turns out that the Birthers are right and I turn against Obama, I'm going not going to take Rush's side here.

I have a cousin that went to Georgetown, but lets look at the facts of the situation.

She has served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. She attended which Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

She then spent the next six years working both in the private and public sector in a wide variety of causes in New York. She then turned around and went to Georgetown, but only after, and I quote from the Washington Post:

"Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the students at Georgetown that don’t have birth control covered, and what that’s meant for them. “I wanted to be able to share their stories,” she says. “My testimony would have been about women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical needs and have suffered dire consequences.. . .The committee did not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women who have been dramatically affected by this policy.”"

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/s...tion-activist/
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-...e-is-no-fluke/

So let me get this straight she graduates with a major focus in feminist studies, spends SIX years away from college. And then decides to go back to Georgetown BUT only after researching it's policy on contraception, and then spends the next THREE years working to get that policy changed. And you are willing to tell me she is just a innocent student that got swept up in this whole thing? Please.

Edit: And Rush never says anything to get attention??

Of course he does, but if we are going to shine a negative light on Rush, and even on people who play parts in political campaigns, like Joe the Plumber, then its time that we shine the light on Miss Fluke.

[Dark Sage]

So maybe Ms. Fluke was indeed qualified to speak before Congress on the issue. She certainly wasn't a prostitute who wanted free contraception because she was having too much sex, as Rush claimed.

[Roy Karrde]

So maybe Ms. Fluke was indeed qualified to speak before Congress on the issue. She certainly wasn't a prostitute who wanted free contraception because she was having too much sex, as Rush claimed.

Was she qualified? She is a political activist, the Congressional testimony was looking for what amounted to a everyday student and how this policy would effect them, which is why she portrayed herself as in her lower 20s, not her early 30s, and why her testimony has holes large enough to drive a truck through such as contraception costing a college student over $1,000 dollars a year.

Let me put it this way, if a Congressman brought up a member of the NRA to act as testimony about how gun legislation would effect homeowners, and they did not disclose their relationship with the NRA. Would we consider that person to be qualified to speak about the everyday homeowner?

[firepokemon]

Of course not. But the left have always been able to be hypocritical and somehow get away with it. Most of the time that is due to have an unequal power relationship.

[Dark Sage]

You're calling the left hypocritical?

One of the current GOP hopefuls is the biggest hypocrite who has ever run for the office. He was leading the lynch mob against Bill Clinton despite the fact that he was an adulterer himself two times over.

Edit: You can try to tell me that the reason Clinton was impeached was for lying to a grand jury, but that doesn't fool anyone. The Starr Report mentions the word "cigar" three times as often as it mentions "Whitewater".

[Roy Karrde]

You're calling the left hypocritical?

One of the current GOP hopefuls is the biggest hypocrite who has ever run for the office. He was leading the lynch mob against Bill Clinton despite the fact that he was an adulterer himself two times over.

And when did Gingrich ever lie under oath? If this thing was all about Clinton screwing women I would be right with you in that he is a hypocrite. But Clinton lied under oath and tried to influence testimony to save his own ass.

[Dark Sage]

See my edit. That argument fools no one.

[Roy Karrde]

You can try to tell me that the reason Clinton was impeached was for lying to a grand jury, but that doesn't fool anyone. The Starr Report mentions the word "cigar" three times as often as it mentions "Whitewater".

Which means nothing, Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman under oath. As such Starr would need to establish that sexual conduct did happen. I also notice you have not mentioned the witness tampering he engaged in.

[Dark Sage]

And yet, Clinton's approval ratings were never even close to being as bad as his successor's.

[Roy Karrde]

And yet, Clinton's approval ratings were never even close to being as bad as his successor's.

Which means absolutely nothing in this debate. The fact is Clinton broke the law, once by lying under oath, the other by trying to alter the testimony of his secretary.

[Dark Sage]

So why wasn't he removed from office? Apparently, you were easier to convince than the ones who were in charge of deciding that.

I should note that the GOP had a House majority at the time.

[Roy Karrde]

So why wasn't he removed from office? Apparently, you were easier to convince than the ones who were in charge of deciding that.

I should note that the GOP had a House majority at the time.

And the house voted to impeach, it was the Senate that decided against it. Mind you he still lost his law license because of his actions also.

[Dark Sage]

The vote in the Senate was 55 votes for not guilty, 45 for guilty. Every single vote for guilty (that is not an exaggeration) came from a Republican, but a few of them voted not guilty.

Was this truly an attempt to oust a corrupt President, or a GOP witch-hunt? Cause it sure seemed that way.

[Roy Karrde]

The vote in the Senate was 55 votes for not guilty, 45 for guilty. Every single vote for guilty (that is not an exaggeration) came from a Republican, but a few of them voted not guilty.

Was this truly an attempt to oust a corrupt President, or a GOP witch-hunt? Cause it sure seemed that way.

If it were a GOP witch hunt then the evidence would be pathetically small, instead you have him not only lying under oath, but asking his secretary these questions in the oval office in a attempt to change her testimony:

a. "You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone."

b. "You could see and hear everything."

c. "Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?"

d. "She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that."

[Dark Sage]

It wasn't enough to convince two thirds of the Senate, and I think that the House GOP, including Gingrich, knew that. Which means that Starr's investigation was a colossal waste, which taxpayers had to pay for.

[Roy Karrde]

It wasn't enough to convince two thirds of the Senate, and I think that the House GOP, including Gingrich, knew that. Which means that Starr's investigation was a colossal waste, which taxpayers had to pay for.

So let me get this straight because they could not convince a few members of the Senate, the investigation was a colossal failure even though it exposed Clinton's lying, and did punish Clinton. And did cause him to be impeached by the House of Representatives, something that will always be in his legacy.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, if he could have run for a third term, I would have loved to have voted for him again. I wasn't convinced that his faults outweighed his accomplishments.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, if he could have run for a third term, I would have loved to have voted for him again. I wasn't convinced that his faults outweighed his accomplishments.

I am sure you would, but that doesn't excuse him for his crimes.

By the way I agree with you, I would probably have voted for him as well if I were the same age and politically active as I currently am. Yes he was a sleazy bastard, but he also knew how to have a relationship with Congress ( Unlike today's President ) and he was not a nut like Al Gore.

[firepokemon]

Doesn't excuse Newt Gingrich for his crimes either.

[Roy Karrde]

Doesn't excuse Newt Gingrich for his crimes either.

Very true, he in many ways reminds me of Clinton, he is sleazy as hell, but he also is very gifted on the debate stage ( he is also overweight ). The only difference is while Clinton was extremely likeable, Newt just isn't.

[Dark Sage]

Very true, he in many ways reminds me of Clinton, he is sleazy as hell, but he also is very gifted on the debate stage ( he is also overweight ). The only difference is while Clinton was extremely likeable, Newt just isn't.

See, we agree on something. (I also think that Gore is a little spacey, but I don't think he's quite a "nut".)

The biggest difference between Gingrich and Clinton is, Clinton is a nice guy. Gingrich is nasty.

[Roy Karrde]

Alright guys, race is closed in 3 states.

Gingrich gets Georgia ( No surprise there )

Va and Vt too close to call at the moment as the votes start getting counted.

Edit: Romney beat Paul in Virginia.

And Romney beats Paul in Vermont.

[firepokemon]

Ron Paul shouldn't even be close to Romney which just continues to show how poor Mitt Romney has run this Republican Nomination Process. He hasn't won any of the conservative states. That isn't expected but are those voters going to get behind Romney come the Presidential race or are they going to stay at home. We know Obama's support grew in 2008 and literally got any remaining Clinton support.

The same can't be said for Romney. That won't matter in states such as Georgia where Obama won't have a chance. But all those swing states, I suspect the majority will go to Obama simply because of the lack of Republican support.

[Roy Karrde]

Ron Paul shouldn't even be close to Romney which just continues to show how poor Mitt Romney has run this Republican Nomination Process. He hasn't won any of the conservative states. That isn't expected but are those voters going to get behind Romney come the Presidential race or are they going to stay at home. We know Obama's support grew in 2008 and literally got any remaining Clinton support.

The same can't be said for Romney. That won't matter in states such as Georgia where Obama won't have a chance. But all those swing states, I suspect the majority will go to Obama simply because of the lack of Republican support.

From what I have been hearing Virginia was a protest vote from Santorum and Gingrich supporters, they went out and said "Well I cant write in for my guy, so I am going to go support the weakest guy".

[Dark Sage]

You gotta admit, Roy, voter turnout in these primaries has been pretty bad. Worse than last time.

[Roy Karrde]

You gotta admit, Roy, voter turnout in these primaries has been pretty bad. Worse than last time.

Yeah but the only voter turn out that matters is the voter turn out that happens on election day.

Edit: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the first Congressman to lose his seat in 2012.

Looks like Romney is going to pick up Ohio and with it, the Republican nomination.

[Dark Sage]

Here's something to think about...

About a third of the voters at the exit polls in Ohio (a state that the GOP must win in November in order to win the White House, if history is any indication) said that they believe abortion should be legal.

If that's not a bad sign for the GOP, I don't know what is.