That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
If people were actually trying to add stuff about Tinkerbell and Batman... ya think? What's the more reasonable explanation here?Defiant wrote:Colbert reenacts Revere's ride, and causes people to vandalize Wiki's Bell page forcing them to revert it.
It also makes me wonder if potentially the edits to Revere's page might have been satire, rather than the work of Palin fans.
Ah, yes, the informed perspective.Holman wrote:And, too, Dan Savage's column deals with topics like orgy etiquette and safe fisting and which kinds of nipple-clips won't leave painful abrasions. I don't know if he ever expected his coinage to go national the way it has.
Of course, Santorum and his ilk would say that it is outrageous to tell teens that it's OK to be gay.silverjon wrote:Ah, yes, the informed perspective.Holman wrote:And, too, Dan Savage's column deals with topics like orgy etiquette and safe fisting and which kinds of nipple-clips won't leave painful abrasions. I don't know if he ever expected his coinage to go national the way it has.
"Santorum" was most certainly intended to take off as much as possible. I'd say Fed's assessment of the justification is reasonable.
Plenty of Savage's column deals with questions where the people asking don't know who else to turn to, like gay teens who want to know if there's any hope for them at all. It's not all outrageous all the time.
*Digs deeper*silverjon wrote:If people were actually trying to add stuff about Tinkerbell and Batman... ya think? What's the more reasonable explanation here?Defiant wrote:Colbert reenacts Revere's ride, and causes people to vandalize Wiki's Bell page forcing them to revert it.
It also makes me wonder if potentially the edits to Revere's page might have been satire, rather than the work of Palin fans.
I quote reliable sources such as the LA Times, CNN, when they tell me that Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere used bells to warn colonists during his midnight ride. An enquiring mind such as mine wants to find out exactly how this was accomplished.
And then later removed it with the message:File:Paul Revere warning colonists via bell according to Sarah Palin.jpg
Church bells are too heavy to carry on horseback, so Revere may have used a lighter weight bell similar to a bicycle bell (see figure). Two (2) problems: (1) bicycle bells weren't invented yet (2) would they scare the horse?
(cur | prev) 21:30, 6 June 2011 Tomwsulcer (talk | contribs) (22,281 bytes) (/* removing Palin and Revere -- fun's over but it was good while it lasted) (undo)
1. Drink every time the name “Sarah Palin” comes up.
2. If Herman Cain mentions “Herman Cain,” eat a slice of pizza.
3. When Michele Bachmann refers to anything along the lines of “principles our nation was founded on,” take a shot.
4. If Newt Gingrich modifies anything with the words “shockingly” or “fundamentally,” take two shots.
5. If Herman Cain defers policy decisions to his “experts” drink as much as your nearest “expert” tells you to.
6. If Mitt Romney brings up health care on his own, drink 1 gallon of milk.
7. Every time the word “Mormon” is mentioned, drink a venti.
8. When Rick Santorum talks about defeating Democrats in the ’90s, drink 2 Yuengling.
9. If Santorum tells you to google “Rick Santorum,” take 2 shots.
10. Whenever Ron Paul references the constitution or says “it’s not in the constitution,” take a drink.
11. When Tim Pawlenty says he won’t be “entertainer in chief” or any variation thereof, down a beer. (If he says, “Obamneycare,” down 2 tequila shooters.)
12. Whenever Michele Bachmann makes a mistake with basic history, drink 1 Pabst Blue Ribbon.
13. When Herman Cain discusses Muslims, drink as much as you like, with the understanding that Sharia law will be applied for as long as he is speaking.
14. When Newt Gingrich says “Callista,” ask your wife if it’s ok for you to take a drink. (If you are single and watching at a pub, kiss a waitress.)
15. Every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned, take a drink.
Clearly this game is designed to kill all the participants.Pyperkub wrote:The Official GOP Debate drinking game:
15. Every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned, take a drink.
Pyperkub wrote:The Official GOP Debate drinking game:2. If Herman Cain mentions “Herman Cain,” eat a slice of pizza.
Pawlenty defended his economic plan introduced this week that was based on 5% annual growth, which has rarely been achieved in modern U.S. history.
"This idea that we can't have 5% growth in America is hogwash," Pawlenty said. "It's a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5% growth and Brazil can have 5% growth, then the United States of America can have 5% growth. And I don't accept this notion that we're going to be average or anemic. So my proposal has a 5% growth target."
Most of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking I've read today pegs Romney as the predictable winner and Bachmann as the strong upstart contender.Mr. Fed wrote:The all exceeded my expectations, and yet I was underwhelmed.
However <insert adjective here> the Republican candidates may seem right now, if the unemployment figures and economy do not turn around significantly by November next year, chances are that the Republican nominee will be the next POTUS. How's that for a scary thing?Exodor wrote:A field with Bachmann as the second-best candidate is a scary thing.
Plus, she's a tax lawyer, like Zarathud. That humanizes her, too.Newcastle wrote:The one thing which i have to give props to is the fact that she has had 23 foster kids in her house...
I love you too, Grund.Grundbegriff wrote:Plus, she's a tax lawyer, like Zarathud. That humanizes her, too.Newcastle wrote:The one thing which i have to give props to is the fact that she has had 23 foster kids in her house...
HonestifiedZarathud wrote:I have almost three times her experience in tax law fighting for private taxpayers, and it is my belief is that Mrs. Bachman misunderstands reality.
Which is like admitting that the taste of dirt is preferable to gravel, to be honest.El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, he hasn't exactly been helpful on the issue by any means. But at least he beats Bachmann.
Adorable Puppies
I am pro-adorable puppies. When I’m elected to Congress, and if you’re good, I might get you one.
That Annoying Guy at Work
What’s that guy’s name? You know, the one who chews with his mouth open and steals your yogurt…Chuck? Chip? Chaz? Whatever, that’s not important. I hate that guy, and when I’m elected to Congress, he will feel my wrath!
When asked Monday whether it was time to bring combat troops home from Afghanistan, Romney said, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes from our generals.’’
“We’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation,’’ he added. “Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.’’
The comments illustrate a potential shift within a Republican Party that has long placed an emphasis on national security issues. They are also spurring intraparty disagreements over the direction of not only the war effort, but of the role of the United States in international conflicts.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, took issue with Romney’s comments, saying he was taking Republicans in the wrong direction.
“I was incredibly disappointed,’’ Graham told the Wall Street Journal, referring to the debate. “No one seemed to have a passion for the idea that we’re fighting radical Islam and the center of that battle is Afghanistan.’’
Regarding Romney’s comment that only Afghans can “win Afghanistan’s independence,’’ according to the Hill newspaper Graham retorted, “This is not a war of independence. This is a war to protect America’s national vital security interests.’’ Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, was even more critical. “I’ve really lost faith in Mitt Romney,’’ he said in an interview. “Something happens to someone when they become the front-runner . . . For him to make a statement like that questions whether or not we should be there, and that we should get out — it’s not going to work. To me, that statement was a killer for his nomination bid.’’
...
Political observers say that Romney appears to be carefully calibrating his position to try to appease both those who are growing uneasy about the ongoing war and those who want to see him as strong on national security issues.
“It does strike me that he’s backing away from the unconditional support he had in January, there’s no question in my mind,’’ said Richard Eichenberg, a political science professor at Tufts University. “The care with which he phrased his comments in the debate suggests that, on the one hand he’s adapting to the growing disenchantment within the Republican Party over the war, while at the same time taking great care not to suggest he’s weak on the war.’’
[/quote]Kraken wrote:Romney: US out of Afghanistan!
Honestly, I'm starting to think this guy's already running for President. His newest incarnation as middle-of-the-road-Mitt plays pretty good with independents, but it's not sitting very well with his party's noisemakers.
Calculated. He can afford to do so.msduncan wrote:Kraken wrote:Romney: US out of Afghanistan!
Honestly, I'm starting to think this guy's already running for President. His newest incarnation as middle-of-the-road-Mitt plays pretty good with independents, but it's not sitting very well with his party's noisemakers.
Interesting. So the sheer number of politicians pandering to the wingnuts removes them from consideration despite their numbers and enthusiasm? Might they coalesce around one of the fringe players like Bachmann, or are they just too fragmented to do that?msduncan wrote: 1. The social conservatives are split 5 ways from Sunday due to all the candidates
2. The moderate Republicans will move toward Romney, securing the nomination
House and Senate Republican leadership called for more candidates a couple months ago. Remember that? Now that I look back on it, I have to wonder if it was their plan to try to water down the social conservative vote by creating a deluge of candidates, thereby making it more likely that a social moderate would win the nomination (and thus giving the Republcians a better shot in the general election).Kraken wrote:Interesting. So the sheer number of politicians pandering to the wingnuts removes them from consideration despite their numbers and enthusiasm? Might they coalesce around one of the fringe players like Bachmann, or are they just too fragmented to do that?msduncan wrote: 1. The social conservatives are split 5 ways from Sunday due to all the candidates
2. The moderate Republicans will move toward Romney, securing the nomination
Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.
Didn't Romney take a middle-of-the-road (i.e. reasonable) approach when asked about Evolution? I have no doubt (if I'm recalling his opinion correctly) this will be a problem.Kraken wrote: Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.
Only if the other Republican primary candidates hammer him on it. The Democrats are unlikely to. So far the in-party candidates have been playing nice and going by the Reagan edict of 'thou shalt speak no evil of a fellow Republican".Smoove_B wrote:Didn't Romney take a middle-of-the-road (i.e. reasonable) approach when asked about Evolution? I have no doubt (if I'm recalling his opinion correctly) this will be a problem.Kraken wrote: Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.
