Export thread

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File

So the 2008 McCain rap sheet on Romney was released and hoo boy is it damning. Talk about a flip-flopping candidate.

How the fuck can Republicans vote for this guy? Besides being stupid as fuck and buying everything they are being spoon-fed by the Koch brothers?

I'd just like to go on the record and say some of us were pointing this out long ago.

But the answer to your question? Because the only other alternative is 4 more years of Obama. And while conservatives were happy to "punish" republicans for sucking at conservatism in 2006, they changed their mind by 2010.

*edit - and after Herman Cain got out, it was either this, or Newt Gingrich or (gurk) Rick Santorum. How quickly we forget.

One thing is for certain, if Romney wins in November, it won't be because anybody voted for him. If the election becomes about Romney, he's sure to lose. If they can keep the narrative focused on Obama, he stands a chance (note, I did not say "will win," I said stands a chance).

In any case, I'm still sticking to my bullheaded, stubborn protest-vote. I vote the Libertarian straight party ticket. The country may burn down around me, but I will be able to say I was one of the few ones not trying to put out the fire with rubbing alcohol.

The only real alternative was Rick Santorum. And either there are still people with sanity in the Republican party or they are big whimps who thought it would be easier with Romney.

Why don't the Koch brothers just eliminate the middleman and run for office themselves?

jwhouk said:

Why don't the Koch brothers just eliminate the middleman and run for office themselves?

Click to expand...

I see their campaign slogans now...

"Vote for us... or you're fired."

"Koch. We own you already."

GasBandit said:

If the election becomes about Romney, he's sure to lose. If they can keep the narrative focused on Obama, he stands a chance (note, I did not say "will win," I said stands a chance).

Click to expand...

At this point, I think they've already lost this battle. Romney's refusal to release his tax records, to talk about his off shore accounts, or to give a coherent, justifiable answer for his actions/involvement with Bain Capital have basically compromised his position and now everyone's eyes are on him. He can't double down or he's going to have the same problem Obama had/has with his birth certificate and he doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the issue with the election less than 4 months away.

He needs to resolve this issue NOW, while he still has time to spin any revelations.

AshburnerX said:

He needs to resolve this issue NOW, while he still has time to spin any revelations.

Click to expand...

Does he? Everyone who is republican only has 2 choices. Vote for him or don't vote. And here's the secret, they hate Obama more than Romney.

Espy said:

Does he? Everyone who is republican only has 2 choices. Vote for him or don't vote. And here's the secret, they hate Obama more than Romney.

Click to expand...

WV will probably go to Romney in a landslide, thanks to the propaganda from the coal companies. You know, the ones who replaced you all with Mexicans, but still have you convinced it's Obama that took all yer jerbs!

Espy said:

Does he? Everyone who is republican only has 2 choices. Vote for him or don't vote. And here's the secret, they hate Obama more than Romney.

Click to expand...

Except he doesn't NEED to appeal to Republicans. They were going to vote for him regardless or just not vote at all. What Romney needs to win are moderates and independents... you know, the people who came out and voted for Obama in record numbers. Those people are looking at his inability to give serious answers about his past business work and are starting to wonder if they'd be supporting the exact kind of person that ruined the economy in the first place.

AshburnerX said:

Except he doesn't NEED to appeal to Republicans. They were going to vote for him regardless or just not vote at all. What Romney needs to win are moderates and independents... you know, the people who came out and voted for Obama in record numbers. Those people are looking at his inability to give serious answers about his past business work and are starting to wonder if they'd be supporting the exact kind of person that ruined the economy in the first place.

Click to expand...

Ironically, that's why all the high party intellectuals pushed for Romney so hard - he was supposed to be a magnet for the windsocks in the center, being a new england RINO himself. It never works.

And yet, for some perspective, despite all his obvious, obvious flaws, Romney is still in a dead heat in the polls with Obama. And you can hear the panic setting in because of it.

AshburnerX said:

Except he doesn't NEED to appeal to Republicans. They were going to vote for him regardless or just not vote at all. What Romney needs to win are moderates and independents... you know, the people who came out and voted for Obama in record numbers. Those people are looking at his inability to give serious answers about his past business work and are starting to wonder if they'd be supporting the exact kind of person that ruined the economy in the first place.

Click to expand...

I don't think that many moderates are surprised, or even care, about his past work or his tax records. Those are liberal issues. No other candidate has been asked to release his tax records like this, so it strikes me as unnecessary. And as for his outsourcing, well, what do you want. He was a capitalist businessman making profitable and legal choices.

I would be more concerned if he didn't do it. I don't think there's even a real argument here, and it bothers me to see the Obama campaign pandering on these talking points. It does nothing for the moderate.

ITT: People who are as far from moderate as you can get make assumptions about moderates. Hilarity ensues.

Necronic said:

I don't think that many moderates are surprised, or even care, about his past work or his tax records. Those are liberal issues. No other candidate has been asked to release his tax records like this, so it strikes me as unnecessary. And as for his outsourcing, well, what do you want. He was a capitalist businessman making profitable and legal choices.

I would be more concerned if he didn't do it. I don't think there's even a real argument here, and it bothers me to see the Obama campaign pandering on these talking points. It does nothing for the moderate.

Click to expand...

Yes but how do you explain the fact that he had a job, huh? Greedy bastard, that's what he is.

Tress said:

ITT: People who are as far from moderate as you can get make assumptions about moderates. Hilarity ensues.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem ensues, more like it.

GasBandit said:

And yet, for some perspective, despite all his obvious, obvious flaws, Romney is still in a dead heat in the polls with Obama. And you can hear the panic setting in because of it.

Click to expand...

"Left Wing panicking, on the ropes!" said Pro-Right Wing columnist today, to the shock of everyone.

Honestly, anyone who is blown away by Romney's practices needs to really take a long hard look at their assumptions. I don't see any of his practices at Bain Capital as being remotely similar to those of say, Goldman Sachs (scumbags extroadanaire). I think a lot of people have veneer thin understanding of ethical business practices and capitalism and assume that just because someone is making money, or just because someone gets hurt, that the dude is a scumbag.

I mean....we're talking about a Steel mill in the 90s ffs. One of the only ones left in the US. That they breathed another decade of life into after rescuing it from an imminent demise. I am simply amazed that they kept it running as long as they did, considering.

Necronic said:

No other candidate has been asked to release his tax records like this, so it strikes me as unnecessary.

Click to expand...

No sitting president has ever had to release their long form birth certificate ether, and yet that happened this year as well.

AshburnerX said:

No sitting president has ever had to release their long form birth certificate ether, and yet that happened this year as well.

Click to expand...

comparing people who are upset about bain capital to birthers is somehow apropos.

Yeah, seriously you just made my argument.

wolol.

I need to stop watching so much fucking CNN. Been trying to keep tabs on the wildfires (because of relatives that live in those regions) and I've been absorbing asinine political bullshit in the process.

It is not like Bain is the only thing in Romney's record that he's running on... never mind.

Mitt the Ripper should stick.

Word on the street is Romney's close to naming his running mate. Scuttlebutt says neither Chris Christie nor Marco Rubio are under consideration, Christie is apparently unpleasant to deal with and "isn't as conservative as people think" (oh the IRONY), and they're worried that Rubio would get character assassinated even worse than Palin was, because there's nothing that the left, especially the media, hates and fears more than a republican minority.

So... it's no one of consequence then, unless he gets Santorum on board or something.

AshburnerX said:

So... it's no one of consequence then, unless he gets Santorum on board or something.

Click to expand...

Word is it'll either be Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, or Rob Portman. All 3 are with him in Ohio today (I think that's where he is...)

Again, the only name I recognize from that list is Pawlenty. So really, it's no one of consequence.

AshburnerX said:

Again, the only name I recognize from that list is Pawlenty. So really, it's no one of consequence.

Click to expand...

Ehh, you should recognize the name of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. He's been in the spotlight a few times, particularly around the last election. That said, he's kinda... Diet Santorum.

Bobby Jindal is a backwards nutter.

Jindal would be funny since Biden would just massacre him in any debate.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Jindal would be funny since Biden would just massacre him in any debate.

Click to expand...

I dunno... not to say Jindal is good at debate, but more along the lines of Biden propensity for verbal gaffes of extraordinary magnitude. But having the media cover for you is a big help.

Yeah, Biden's no smooth criminal either, but at least he's a known moron.

see: Palin vs Biden, 2008
see: Jindal vs absolutely nobody, that state of the union rebuttal when everyone laughed at him

Mittens picking Pawlenty is like white bread asking to have mayo spread on it.

White bread with mayo? Damn, they know white middle America all too well!

drifter said:

White bread with mayo? Damn, they know white middle America all too well!

Click to expand...

Pretty much. I honestly can't think of anyone Romney could pick for veep that would make me vote for him.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

see: Palin vs Biden, 2008

Click to expand...

See: blind pigs, kernels of corn.

Dave said:

How the fuck can Republicans vote for this guy? Besides being stupid as fuck and buying everything they are being spoon-fed by the Koch brothers?

Click to expand...

I'm late to the party but I'll state the obvious: Because politics is less and less about ideology and more and more about your team winning.

The man is pretty much the absolute proof of evolution and natural selection. He changed all of his stances to survive in the Republican party, made it to the top, and would grow a third arm out of his ass just to insincerely shake a few more hands.

FYI:

Paul Ryan = Scott Walker lite.

I thought Christmas only came once a year

So, I'm no "political scientist" but isn't wisconsin a huge mess and picking a politician from there a bad move?

Not if you're the GOP.

Sigh.

Wisconsin, it turns out, was only a dry run for Koch Brothers Inc.

Hey - it's man-Palin! Just about the worst choice he could have made.

Are they even trying? What advantage does this give, other than ensuring the Koch brothers donate millions?

Dude's voting record is just...ugh.

Lesse...Obama can highlight Ryan's devotion to Ayn Rand, (quite possibly the most selfish person in literary history) how his type of politics resulted in a recall effort in his home state, the mess that is Wisconsin, that giant middle finger to the middle and lower classes that was the Ryan budget...oh, the Dems will be spoilt for choice.

Can't say I'm surprised with the choice. The GOP can never seem to differentiate fame and infamy within their own party. A name is big name if people have heard of it. Hell, they could nominate a financial parasite who gutted businesses, wiped out pensions, hid money overseas, refuses to release his tax returns for fear of how damaging that would be, and was an early champion of outsourcing, all the while claiming to be a champion of the American worker. Oh, wait...they nominated just such a douchebag, didn't they?

God help us all if this country is foolish enough to appoint Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham to lead us.

Bain Capital just merged with Koch Industries.

jwhouk said:

Bain Capital just merged with Koch Industries.

Click to expand...

And they shall call it Kain Inc., if they are abel.

I estimate for every conservative that decides Paul Ryan is just what they needed to vote for Romney, there are at least two independents/moderates who just went "Oh fuck no" in their heads.

Just saw this sign while driving around my State:

I just can't help but think it will have the opposite of the intended effect.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Just saw this sign while driving around my State:
View attachment 7655
I just can't help but think it will have the opposite of the intended effect.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

I think that's about as close to an honest discussion of platforms and policies as we're going to get in this election.

PatrThom said:

Just saw this sign while driving around my State:
View attachment 7655
I just can't help but think it will have the opposite of the intended effect.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

At least they're pretty honest about not caring about the vote of a large percentage of the population. I don't care who the other side would be, if you think "he supports gay marriage so don't vote for him" is a sensible position, I'm not voting for you.

Bubble181 said:

At least they're pretty honest about not caring about the vote of a large percentage of the population. I don't care who the other side would be, if you think "he supports gay marriage so don't vote for him" is a sensible position, I'm not voting for you.

Click to expand...

Well, out of curiosity, I read up on some Gallup polls and as of May 2012

50% considered themselves Pro-life vs 41% pro-choice and 50% Pro-Gay marriage, 48% against

So in terms of numbers, it's not a platform that would not necessary hurt, and independent numbers are largely divided as well.

Necronic said:

No other candidate has been asked to release his tax records like this, so it strikes me as unnecessary.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect, they all release them. And not just those running president either. What makes this even funnier is that Romney's father is the one who started the practice of releasing their tax records when running for public office. Romney breaking what has been the standard for decades (thanks to his father) is why people are paying attention. The only possible reason for refusing to release them is that he has something to hide. As to what we can only speculate. Popular guesses are:

• He is paying a ridiculously low amount of tax.
• He has cheated on his taxes.
• He is tithing less than 10% (apparently a big whoops if you're a Mormon).
• He has earned income from something a good Republican should never be involved in.
• All of the above.

Okay, I truly don't know if this is sad or funny, but The National Review is arguing that Mitt Romney should get the female vote - 100% of it - because of his...wait for it...his semen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/mitt-romney-female-vote-national-review_n_1822470.html

I don't want to live on this planet any more.

I don't understand how someone can think the Presidency should hinge on whose pecker is most potent.

Especially if they don't then go on to praise Clinton.

--Patrick

Siska said:

This is incorrect, they all release them.

Click to expand...

And so did Romney. The point isn't that he refuses to give tax records, but that he only gave two years. Which isn't that abnormal.

Carter - 1 year
Reagan - 1 year
Kerry - 20 years, BUT he only released a partial return of 1 year for his wife, which is where all the wealth was.
McCain - 2 year
Obama - 12 years

Note that the number isn't that abnormal. Moreover note that the only candidate who had wealth similar to Romney's, Kerry, gave EVEN LESS in their tax return.

So no, it's not incorrect. There is no standard for this. And he's not that far off of other presidents.

Fox News calls Ryan a liar...

Over and over again.

DarkAudit said:

Fox News calls Ryan a liar...

Over and over again.

Click to expand...

Does that mean people can't say "Fair and Balanced" with exaggerated sarcasm any more?[DOUBLEPOST=1346335551][/DOUBLEPOST]Additionally... ha ha ha... look at some of the headlines that author has published on fox news!

Once Fox News gives an hour prime time show to a Gay Community Organizer, instead of just reprinting her opinion pieces, sure...

sixpackshaker said:

Once Fox News gives an hour prime time show to a Gay Community Organizer, instead of just reprinting her opinion pieces, sure...

Click to expand...

I'm sure they would, if such a thing would actually garner ratings.

reminder that the Romney campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers

http://www.mediaite.com/online/romn...et-our-campaign-be-dictated-by-fact-checkers/

My female relatives have been posting about how classy Ann Romney is. So I checked out her speech. Why are people fawning over this fluff?! Oh, because she's pandering to the people who won't have any rights under Romney's thumb. God save us...

this is so fucking stupid


I really hope these clowns don't win

I love how they say things like:
I will fight to defend the institution of marriage. Instead of: I will never allow gays to marry as long as I'm president.
I will fight to save the life of the unborn. Instead of: I will fight to save the life of the unborn even if it kills the living.
I will save the economy by creating 12 million new jobs. Instead of: I will create 12 million new jobs by doing etc etc etc

Romney's entire speech was full of nothing and hidden put-downs.

Welcome to the world of politics?

I don't care about the world of politics as much as I hate disguised bigotry and sexism.

I did like the part of the Clint speech about Democrats not being the enemy... then he started talking to the chair, man that was painful.

Man, Romney's delivery of every line of his speech was weird. It's like every time he stopped talking, I was waiting for the punchline.

Yes, Republicans are awful. It's just a crying shame the only other alternative most people think they have is Democrats.

The level of political discourse is yelling at an empty chair

I thought the mock firing Obama skit was the dumbest thing

Actually an empty chair, or rather, an empty suit, is a pretty apt metaphor for Obama.

(I haven't even watched any of the convention, Guild Wars 2 too good)

You want to the masses, who have skyrocketed Honey Boo Boo (or whatever it's called) Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras to record high ratings to know there's more than 2 parties in the political system?

Funniest thing I've heard in a while.

GasBandit said:

Actually an empty chair, or rather, an empty suit, is a pretty apt metaphor for Obama.

Click to expand...

Look, conservatives can either say he does too much and makes the government too big, or you can say he doesn't do enough and he's basically an empty suit. You can't have it both ways.

Tress said:

Look, conservatives can either say he does too much and makes the government too big, or you can say he doesn't do enough and he's basically an empty suit. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Most anti-gay Republicans do get it both ways.

HEYOOOOO!

Tress said:

Look, conservatives can either say he does too much and makes the government too big, or you can say he doesn't do enough and he's basically an empty suit. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

By "empty suit" we don't mean he doesn't do anything. We mean he has no character or ideas of his own, and people project their image of what they want onto him, while the power players behind him pull his strings.

Meanwhile, the same could be said of my state's governor.

GasBandit said:

By "empty suit" we don't mean he doesn't do anything. We mean he has no character or ideas of his own, and people project their image of what they want onto him, while the power players behind him pull his strings.

Click to expand...

So your saying Obama was George Walker Bush?

AshburnerX said:

So your saying Obama was George Walker Bush?

Click to expand...

His, if you will pardon the expression, dark reflection.

GasBandit said:

By "empty suit" we don't mean he doesn't do anything. We mean he has no character or ideas of his own, and people project their image of what they want onto him, while the power players behind him pull his strings.

Click to expand...

Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize you were using the wrong definition for your comment.

GasBandit said:

His, if you will pardon the expression, dark reflection.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Bush was the dark reflection. Obama is, at his worst, grey.

Tress said:

Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize you were using the wrong definition for your comment.

Click to expand...

Well, if you want to get all merriam-webster on me, the dictionary definition is "an ineffectual executive."

Seems to fit as well. Despite having filibuster-proof majorities in both house and senate for his first two years, he's accomplished surprisingly little, and had to compromise away most of what he did accomplish.[DOUBLEPOST=1346447332][/DOUBLEPOST]

AshburnerX said:

I'm pretty sure Bush was the dark reflection. Obama is, at his worst, grey.

Click to expand...

Actually, it would probably be most accurate to say that he is Bush concentrated.

GasBandit said:

Well, if you want to get all merriam-webster on me, the dictionary definition is "an ineffectual executive."

Seems to fit as well. Despite having filibuster-proof majorities in both house and senate for his first two years, he's accomplished surprisingly little, and had to compromise away most of what he did accomplish.

Click to expand...

...which gets back to what I was saying. The man is either an evil anti-American tyrant overstepping his authority with huge government expansions and socialism, or he's a dimwit who hasn't accomplished anything. You can't have it both ways.

Tress said:

...which gets back to what I was saying. The man is either an evil anti-American tyrant overstepping his authority with huge government expansions and socialism, or he's a dimwit who hasn't accomplished anything. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Just because Dr. Doom never gets his way completely doesn't mean he still isn't a villain.

GasBandit said:

Just because Dr. Doom never gets his way completely doesn't mean he still isn't a villain.

Click to expand...

Dr. Doom ALWAYS gets his way. Everything he does is designed to always benefit him. It's also an incorrect analogy for this situation, because he isn't viewed simultaneously as the biggest threat to the world AND it's biggest idiot. Your ether competent or incompetent. You only get to pick one.

AshburnerX said:

Dr. Doom ALWAYS gets his way. Everything he does is designed to always benefit him. It's also an incorrect analogy for this situation, because he isn't viewed simultaneously as the biggest threat to the world AND it's biggest idiot. Your ether competent or incompetent. You only get to pick one.

Click to expand...

I never said he was competent, but yes, Dr. Doom probably wasn't the best analogy. I'm very thankful that Obama actually isn't good at his job, because if he was, we'd all be right and proper screwed.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been Dr. Drakken.[DOUBLEPOST=1346448602][/DOUBLEPOST]Posted without comment.

I told you Gangnam was going to catch on.

GasBandit said:

Well, if you want to get all merriam-webster on me, the dictionary definition is "an ineffectual executive."

Seems to fit as well. Despite having filibuster-proof majorities in both house and senate for his first two years, he's accomplished surprisingly little, and had to compromise away most of what he did accomplish.[DOUBLEPOST=1346447332][/DOUBLEPOST]

Actually, it would probably be most accurate to say that he is Bush concentrated.

Click to expand...

It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. As Scarborough well knows, the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later. While state politician Christie can possibly be forgiven such an error, someone with Joe Scarborough’s reach and influence ought to have better than a 71% margin of error.
As Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.

Give that chicken some cab fare when you get done with it. It's the least you could do.

Tiger Tsang said:

It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. As Scarborough well knows, the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later. While state politician Christie can possibly be forgiven such an error, someone with Joe Scarborough’s reach and influence ought to have better than a 71% margin of error.
As Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.

Give that chicken some cab fare when you get done with it. It's the least you could do.

Click to expand...

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins were dependable democrat votes in any situation, so at worst they had 61.

Regardless, it never even came to fruition because the democrat party itself splintered and lost its nerve, many of them fearing for their own seats in the inevitable 2010 midterm backlash and thus deciding not to toe the party line in the hopes that they might be spared.

Folks, I have the 2012 presidential debates all summed up for you in advance:

Gilgamesh said:

You want to the masses, who have skyrocketed Honey Boo Boo (or whatever it's called) Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras to record high ratings to know there's more than 2 parties in the political system?

Funniest thing I've heard in a while.

Click to expand...

Uh, not quite right there. Jersey Shore did, at its absolute height, reach about 9 Million viewers per episode which would place it as doing pretty damned well by any measure. But "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo" got 2.9 Million viewers to beat the Republican National Convention's cable coverage. It was the number one show on Cable that night. That same night on broadcast TV: a rerun of "The Big Bang Theory" got 6.170 million viewers, a new episode of ABC's "Wipeout" got 3.490 million, and the Republican National Convention got 8.23 million viewers split between NBC and ABC. As an added "for instance", the dismal failure "Viva Laughlin" got cancelled after only two episodes had aired with an average 7.8 million viewers. Last season's abysmal failure "The Playboy Club" netted 3.47 million viewers in it's final week.

Never, ever mistake "number one with a bullet on a cable" with " well known and popular in the real world". Generally speaking, the most popular shows on cable do not hold a candle to the reach of broadcast television and the bar for "wild success" on cable is insanely low in comparison.

EDIT: Gilgamesh , what is there to disagree with? Go look at TV By The Numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

I really can't tag this guy as one way or the other. His opinions change constantly, and I don't understand what he's actually going to do! As Lil Rummy said: Bush may have made bad decisions, but at least he stook with him.

This guy makes made me compliment Bush. This is how non-confident I am in his leading abilities.

Yoshimickster said:

I really can't tag this guy as one way or the other. His opinions change constantly, and I don't understand what he's actually going to do!

Click to expand...

That's because he's a political chameleon, changing his opinions to suit his environment. Put him in Massachusetts, he lays the groundwork for Obamacare. Put him in the Republican national stage, and he'll loathe abortion, shout about government being too big, and drive a Hummer that runs on the blood of baby pandas - literally anything to get elected. I know most politicians are like that, but if dogs could vote, Romney would eat Alpo.

I am definitely not voting for this schmuck. Of course...after Christi got elected I took a strong vow against voting for anyone especially presidential campaigns due to the complete idiocy of the voting system but still. Seriously though, American democracy is a damn sham.

Looks like the Romneys have a great attitude towards women...

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/

How is it possible that this guy could win this thing!?! Seriously, even selling your soul to the devil shouldn't let you dodge stupid shit like this.

I read the headline as "why women should be paid equal to men" and was very confused.

Zappit said:

Looks like the Romneys have a great attitude towards women...

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/

How is it possible that this guy could win this thing!?! Seriously, even selling your soul to the devil shouldn't let you dodge stupid shit like this.

Click to expand...

AHEM.

From Freewoodpost's disclaimer:

Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.
Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

Click to expand...

Ya'll been ONIONED.

Remember to check for corroboration when your source isn't a major news outlet. Sometimes even when it is.

GasBandit said:

AHEM.

From Freewoodpost's disclaimer:



Ya'll been ONIONED.

Remember to check for corroboration when your source isn't a major news outlet. Sometimes even when it is.

Click to expand...

I just checked Snopes for this very thing, because it didn't quite pass the smell test. I expect people running for office to say dumb shit, but not -that- dumb.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/momsformitt.asp

In that case, its just not funny.

GasBandit said:

AHEM.

From Freewoodpost's disclaimer:



Ya'll been ONIONED.

Remember to check for corroboration when your source isn't a major news outlet. Sometimes even when it is.

Click to expand...

FACEPALM. Yep. Saw it posted on another forum, where people thought it was real.

Zappit said:

FACEPALM. Yep. Saw it posted on another forum, where people thought it was real.

Click to expand...

Meta-trolling!

Forum whore.

I've seen you posting on other forums.

Kinda shady.

Hey Romney haters - do a google image search for the phrase "completely wrong" if you need a chuckle.

GasBandit said:

Hey Romney haters - do a google image search for the phrase "completely wrong" if you need a chuckle.

Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/tech/web/google-romney-completely-wrong/index.html
Ha! That is pretty funny.

Gilgamesh said:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/tech/web/google-romney-completely-wrong/index.html
Ha! That is pretty funny.

Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a meme! And I am happy.