American politics and news thread 2.0

Allegedly the Romney/Ryan ticket has pulled ahead in the electoral college polling. I say "allegedly" because I'm so sick of the constant polls that are coming out....poll after poll after poll, polling everyone from registered voters to likely voters to extremely likely voters. Will be so glad when this election is over and everyone can begin campaigning for 2016.

And I think it would be interesting if Romney did come from behind and win this election; it would be interesting to see if that first debate performance was what really drove him into the lead. But I'm very hesitant to believe Romney has as big a lead as he seems to be developing, and even if he has such a lead, I'm not convinced he can maintain it. I'm also not convinced that there was that many undecided voters who suddenly had a "come to Jesus" moment after the first debate and suddenly decided Romney was their man. And if the electorate is that fickle and easily persuadable, they can just as easily be persuaded back into the Obama camp with less than 3 weeks to go. In any event, it's been fun watching Chris Matthews have an absolute nuclear meltdown over on MSNBC, panicking when faced with the real possibility his candidate may lose. Those people at MSNBC absolutely worship Barack Obama. He is their Supreme Leader. He must not be challenged; it's unconstitutional, apparently:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/chris-matthews-is-challenging-obama-unconstitutional/article/2511086

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Much like how Romney is FOX's savior.

This should probably go in a sports thread dedicated to American football (also known as the NFL), but considering how it seems so few men on this board actually watch American football, I'm going to post this in the politics and news thread. It perfectly encapsulates everything I find detestable, fake, and phony about the NFL forcing the players to wear these stupid pink ribbons to "raise breast cancer awareness":

http://jezebel.com/5950971/the-nfls-campaign-against-breast-cancer-is-a-total-scam

But what about awareness?! Surely the NFL is helping keep people aware and alert and vigilant that at any moment, breast cancer could be lurking around a corner in a dark alley waiting with a hot pink switchblade to steal your purse and boobs. The thing about awareness is that it's all but impossible to quantify — and everyone knows about breast cancer. If you asked 100 people if they're aware that breast cancer is a thing and that it's almost impossible to predict and most often affects women, I'd bet that most of them would nod before slowly backing away from you. Breast cancer awareness is so ubiquitous that if deadly diseases attended the same high school, breast cancer would probably be voted prom queen. The "awareness" that comes from the NFL's sales of pink branded items doesn't justify the extent to which the league is taking advantage of consumers' good intentions to pad their wallets. Even if no NFL player ever touched another pink thing again, Americans would go right on being aware of the disease. Unless the Buffalo Jills or New Orleans Saintsations cheerleaders are holding up signs that show women how to give themselves breast self-exams or tickets come with 5 page printouts of places low income women can obtain breast health screening for low or no cost, the type of awareness the NFL is providing is useless, vague garbage.

I'm so sick of these pink hats, pink shoes, pink jockstraps, pink shirts on NFL Sunday that it makes me just want to puke. This is a sport played by men, coached by men, reported on by men...why isn't the NFL selling walnuts to help raise prostate cancer awareness? Why not sell Kiwi fruits to help raise testicular cancer awareness? The only breasts anyone cares about at an NFL game are on the cheerleaders. Other than that, I want my Sunday afternoons to be completely void of having to see commercials about tampons, douches, maxi-pads, Depends undergarments, fiber laxatives, or yeast infections.

Might wanna spend some of those campaign dollars on proof-readers, Mitt.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Might wanna spend some of those campaign dollars on proof-readers, Mitt.

watching this weeks HIGNFY he did seem recently to introduce Paul Ryan as "the next President..."

^ Maybe if he wins, he intends to step aside in a shock move .

Here's a big fucking surprise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html?smid=fb-metro&_r=0


By the way, I wonder if Mikey was handing out vegetables to trick-or-treaters last night?

Too bad he banned the Big Gulps. They would have been handing for bailing water.

Lower Manhattan's still out of power. The subway system is only half working. People have to blow money on a cab ride if they want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. Bloomberg and Co. are doing some great work. And he thinks people, especially New Yorkers, actually give a fuck about who he's endorsing?


Anyway, I'm off to have a 12oz. can of Coke, because I can't have a Big Gulp.

Control wrote:

Lower Manhattan's still out of power. The subway system is only half working. People have to blow money on a cab ride if they want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. Bloomberg and Co. are doing some great work. And he thinks people, especially New Yorkers, actually give a fuck about who he's endorsing?


Anyway, I'm off to have a 12oz. can of Coke, because I can't have a Big Gulp.

Wear your rubber boots! That's crazy what's going on. Like something out of a movie. All we got here was lots of rain and wind. A few trees falling on cars.

Obama should be re-elected because he was president while there was a hurricane.

CJB wrote:

Obama should be re-elected because he was president while there was a hurricane.

Please, Obama clearly caused the hurricane. Think about it: Hurricane Carter? A black man.

Hurricane Sandy is clearly a 'sista'. They're all in on it together.

Vesper wrote:

CJB wrote:

Obama should be re-elected because he was president while there was a hurricane.

Please, Obama clearly caused the hurricane. Think about it: Hurricane Carter? A black man.

Hurricane Sandy is clearly a 'sista'. They're all in on it together.

Yes and they are purposely black as they did not want to be white, so who is the racist here???? :affraid:

Nutjobs like this on either side of the political aisle are rather amusing.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

Three of my ideal dartboard targets.

Salomé wrote:

Nutjobs like this on either side of the political aisle are rather amusing.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

Talk about sour grapes.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Three of my ideal dartboard targets.

Ayn Rand always struck me as a bit of a nutter, but Friedman and Goldwater are sex on wheels (though I don't agree with much of the former's ideology, no free movement of labour for me, thanks). America's social decline pretty much started when they voted for that c.unt Johnson over Goldwater.

CJB wrote:

America's social decline pretty much started when they voted for that c.unt Johnson over Goldwater.

That was a bad vote. Johnson was no JFK. Goldwater I think was one of the best Presidents the USA never had.

It's funny. What put Johnson out of office was RFK. He hated him so much, he challenged him for the nomination in 68 and forced a sitting President to step down. Cutthroat, but speaking of, Sirhan Sirhan or whoever was pulling his trigger finger, then sat down RFK permanently. Brutal decade. Like something out of ancient Rome.

So CIA Director General Petraeus had an affair and President Obama has accepted his "resignation". What I want to know is: where are all the Democrats on this issue? Why aren't there any Democrats out there backing up Petraeus and telling the media that it's a personal issue, it's "just sex", and that Petraeus, like all great leaders, can "compartmentalize"????

Bill Clinton's disgraceful behavior with multiple women in the White House didn't lead to his resignation, and his behavior was a national security issue.

I'm all for Petraeus being forced out. You don't have a personal life when you are a public servant, and you're not entitled to think that you do. But it's interesting to watch the same political party that doggedly defended President Clinton's deviant behavior stand by and say absolutely nothing as General Petraeus is being handed his hat by the Obama administration.

And this "scandal" is going to last a long time. There are some very interesting questions that need to be answered. Like: how does one woman's complaint that she's receiving harassing emails from some anonymous person manage to get passed up the food chain until it's being investigated by the FBI against a sitting CIA Director? That's a pretty interesting turn of events if you ask me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/14/us-usa-generals-idUSBRE8AD0GT20121114

Bill Clinton isn't deviant, he's male.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Bill Clinton isn't deviant, he's male.

Rape: Juanita Broadrick.
Sexual assault: Kathleen Willey
Indecent exposure: Paula Jones
Sexual harassment: Monica Lewinsky.

No, I don't think Monica was sexually harassed, If anything I think she harassed him. But under NOW's retro-fitted definition of sexual harassment (conveniently rolled out to the world's press during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill confirmation hearings), any sex between a man in a superior position and a female in a subordinate position, constituted sexual harassment, even if she consented to having sex (because, according to NOW, the woman is not in a position to say "No").

Plus his affair was just plain sleazy. Assuming that he was absolutely truthful when he finally confessed, he's admitting to having stood like a statue in the Oval Office while an intern sexually gratified him and he did not reciprocate in any way, shape, or form. Technically, according to Slick Willie, he didn't have sex with her because #1 she was performing sex on him and not vice-versa and #2 oral sex isn't really sex anyway (so, I wonder why it's called "oral sex"?).

I've never believed that their affair was strictly mouth-to-penis. I believe he bent her over that desk in the office and pounded her like a red-headed step-child. But even if that is true, what kind of reprobate just uses an intern to sexually gratify him while he stands there like a robot and does nothing to make her feel good? He couldn't even cop a courtesy feel or offer to wipe the stains off her dress with a Kleenex? She was a 21-year-old, starry-eyed, emotionally needy intern who needed a man old enough to be her father to say "No".

There's also the time that Clinton snuck out of the White House and went to a low-rent, seedy D.C. hotel for a quick "Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma'am!" and the switchboard operator could not locate him. Apparently the person assigned to control the nuclear football did not know where he was either. What about if the country went to war and needed to fire off its nuclear missiles but no one could find the president because he was firing off his own missiles into some cheap whore?

When you're not complaining about homosexuality, you're complaining about heterosexuality. At least you're an equal ops sex hater.

Yeah, Mitt Romney was right (not that I ever doubted him; just thought he was probably the wrong messenger). There is a group of people in this country today that want things...they want government to give them things....they don't want to know where those things come from, or if they came from somebody else. Jess give us our stuff!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/detroit-councilwoman-wants-government-bacon-in-return-for-supporting-obama/

I'm going to do the unthinkable and defend this woman: she's merely doing what we've all known politicians do, she's just being up front and honest about her intentions.

And I quote:"Our people (i.e. black people) in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that. After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young [Detroit's former mayor], he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon."

The Council Woman is asking for the White House to bail out the City of Detroit because Detroit can't pay its bills, street crime is running rampant, hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing Detroit to escape the gang activity that rules the streets. And she wants the President to pay their bills? You mean with a tax base of 10 million people or so those individuals don't generate enough money to pay for essential government functions ....like police, trash collection....firetrucks...schools.....

My dream scenario would be to see Mitt Romney brought in to run Detroit back into solvency. They don't want that. Detroit is 98% black employed, and they have no intention of succeeding that power to anyone else.

All you need is alittle Vigilantism in the streets on Detroit, that would help things progress on the street crime platform.

To quote Paul Kersey " there like cockroaches, you gotta get rid of them all or otherwise whats the point?"

Big Boss wrote:

All you need is alittle Vigilantism in the streets on Detroit, that would help things progress on the street crime platform.

To quote Paul Kersey " there like cockroaches, you gotta get rid of them all or otherwise whats the point?"

Or they can do what they do in New York City [and coming soon to every villages and towns and cities of all shapes and sizes]:

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/armed_officers_police_subways_kV5XZvDG3uETxusY3QI7rN

Detroit has nothing to worry about.

As of January 2013, thousands of Drones will be watching us, listening to our every conversation, peeking into our residences with FLIR and recording our every move day and night.

These Drones will watch us eat, sleep, watch TV, make love and everything we considered private and sacred in our own homes will no longer be!