Here. let me help.
@quantumushroom, @bobknight33. @TangledThorns


>> ^KnivesOut:

I'm fucking serious, where are all those probie sock-puppets to comment on this video? Bk33? QM? TangledThorns? She's talking about you guys, don't you have a response?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.

THIS! We don't care, if you're a progressive you have no illusions about Obama, you shouldn't have before the election, and if you did you definitely don't now. I know it's stupid but I want Romney to win, maybe that'll teach them they can't Fuck Around with promising shit and not delivering.


Well, not so much. I'm not yet willing to burn down the barn just because it has some rats. Romney would be a disaster...for everyone who makes less than several hundred thousand a year. I rather suspect that a Romney administration would lead to the class warfare turning violent, as he appears to be so utterly one-sided.

Thanks, my lovely.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
*news
*lies
*quality (though it seems awfully hot already...)

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.


THIS! We don't care, if you're a progressive you have no illusions about Obama, you shouldn't have before the election, and if you did you definitely don't now. I know it's stupid but I want Romney to win, maybe that'll teach them they can't Fuck Around with promising shit and not delivering.

Imma print your comment and hang it next to my desk for a few days. Well done lad! Very balanced view indeed!

>> ^VoodooV:

yeah, where's the left wing fringe that wants to take away rights from people?
Left wing fringe = vegans, PETA fanatics who want to give equal rights to pets, and ultra hippies who really do want to live in a bona fide commune.
If I were to guess, The right wing thinks the left wing fringe are mustache twirling villians actively conspiring to bring down america from within. (you know, anyone who doesn't wear a US flag lapel pin) Which is fine, but you need to prove that shit instead of just put baseless accusations out.
calling someone a communist/socialist is a meaningless fear-mongering distraction. if you don't have proof, you've got nothing. And proof isn't "I heard it on fox news"
left wing fringe are stupid and fanatical, but they tend not to be violence-prone or take away rights.

>> ^RFlagg:

I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...


I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.

Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.

Examples?>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's a difference between being partisan (Maddow definitely is) and being a racist, homophobic conspiracy theorist. (current GOP base)>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.

I believe that by then the GOP would be something else; just like it was something else under Eisenhower and Lincoln. We are all moving forward; just at different paces. After all, we are just rivals in our way of thinking, not enemies. If for example, you get it and others don't so quickly, you shouldn't ridicule them for not jumping on your bandwagon so quickly. As long as we all have good intentions, the details will get sorted out with time.

>> ^st0nedeye:

In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.
Texas.
In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.

Texas.

In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.



>> ^MonkeySpank:

I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

I don't see where we disagree... Maybe I wasn't clear; the opinion pages and editorials in the NYTimes are left-leaning, just as the opinion pieces and editorials on MSNBC are left-leaning. The news on MSNBC and NYTimes are NOT left-leaning, just as the news (typically) is not presented as right-leaning on Fox News.

People don't blog about or tweet about Fox News or MSNBC when they are just presenting the news, they share Rachel Maddow digging into someone, or Bill O'Reilly yelling about something. These aren't the news, just as the opinion pages of the NYT or the WSJ are not the news.


---------
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^bamdrew:

This is MSNBC. MSNBC is the New York Times of networks... informative, accurate, and often very well presented, but with a left-wing opinion page. They don't pretend otherwise, unlike 'fair and balanced' Fox News. If you want the middle ground watch PBS or CNN (or BBC in the UK or ABC in Australia); the only bias on these networks is the unavoidable bias of choosing which stories to showcase (about international policy, about the environment, etc. can appear 'biased' but cover a topic of journalistic interest).
>> ^My_design:
Boy these guys are clearly routing for Obama ...



The New York Times is definitely not Left Wing. For instance they report WITH GUSTO the atrocities of others but not of the United States. The New York Times only appears Left because it reports some things that the US does wrong around the world, where as other papers around the planet report much much more. We are insulated from these things so things appear Left when they are actually very much Right and in support of the State.

It's edited for this viddy there, shuac-

Koppel rode the wave following the perfect storm of the Iranian hostages prior to Khomeini to fix his legacy in television stone-These veteran news heads can back away from their agenda-oriented handlers once they achieve some tenure amounting to "trust" (whatever the fuck that means in the realm of programmed news coverage) from the masses of robots (at least 80% of the world's population in so-called, 1st world countries).

O'Reilly? Complete cunt piece of shit. Such a cunt, that were it his job to promote a so-called, LIBERAL bias according to his employment with ACME news corp. etc., he'd have all of you fans of Maddow, Maher, Colbert, etc. just as fucking fawning as the next dupe.....NEWS NOT/NEWS-It's all designed to turn your brains liquid so information can be inserted and predictably called-upon to further the cause of assholes and cunts.

Yes, your mind is not your own, oh children of technology and of nothing better to do than work and fuck....planets' going places, wish it were another direction-

I believe there is some potential truth to his claim though. there are reports of supposed voter suppression in the republican primaries. Someone, somewhere decided that Romney was going to be the nominee so there was something about how some precincts called in to report their vote counts and the response was that they already had their count.

I think Rachel Maddow reported on it, It might even be a sift here somewhere EDIT: Found it: http://videosift.com/video/Maddow-Maine-may-withdraw-declaration-that-Romney-won

Also, when did Rachel Maddow start wearing glasses?