• 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by gamefreak9 (2370 posts) -


Online
#2 Posted by gamefreak9 (2370 posts) -
Online
#3 Posted by Sumbog (491 posts) -

The Daily Show has never had so much material.

#4 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

Legit politicians are about as rare as attractive female gamers.

#5 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

I don't know. I'm not following this lunacy mostly because I'm voting democrat or waiting until a contender is chosen to actually care.

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@Axxol said:

Legit politicians are about as rare as attractive female gamers.

You know, I can be both.

#7 Posted by punkxblaze (2990 posts) -

2012 Election: Derp.

#8 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Axxol said:

Legit politicians are about as rare as attractive female gamers.

You know, I can be both.

You're from the moon, so you don't count.

#9 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@Axxol:

Fucking racist. (Either that, or you're acknowledging the legitimacy of Lunarian politics. If that's the case, then awesome.)

#10 Edited by MooseyMcMan (11284 posts) -

Hey, I dislike the Republican Party too, but John Huntsman isn't a moron.

Edit: Also, Herman Cain is pretty much out of the race. He isn't coming back.

Moderator
#11 Posted by gamefreak9 (2370 posts) -

@Axxol said:

Legit politicians are about as rare as attractive female gamers.

Not sure if I agree with this... I haven't met many female gamers... but from the like 10-20 i've met I can pretty much say that at least 12 were attractive. So sure female gamers are rare, but attractive ones aren't relatively rare in conjunction to how rare female gamers are. AKA one in like 20 gamers is female but one in 2(in my experience anyway) fem gamers is attractive...

Online
#12 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@gamefreak9 said:

@Axxol said:

Legit politicians are about as rare as attractive female gamers.

Not sure if I agree with this... I haven't met many female gamers... but from the like 10-20 i've met I can pretty much say that at least 12 were attractive. So sure female gamers are rare, but attractive ones aren't relatively rare in conjunction to how rare female gamers are. AKA one in like 20 gamers is female but one in 2(in my experience anyway) fem gamers is attractive...

Don't take my corny jokes seriously.

#13 Posted by bwmcmaste (850 posts) -

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

#14 Posted by gamefreak9 (2370 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

Hey, I dislike the Republican Party too, but John Huntsman isn't a moron.

Edit: Also, Herman Cain is pretty much out of the race. He isn't coming back.

O I agree Jon Huntsman is the most rational of the bunch, hence why I left it blank. And Michele Bachman doesn't really seem to have a style of her own... not panacea plan like the rest(i think)... she just blends in so I left that blank too.

Online
#15 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -

Obama

#16 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

@Axxol said:

Legit politicians are about as rare as attractive female gamers.

Says a female gamer.

#17 Posted by NekuCTR (1663 posts) -

@bwmcmaste: Sounds like heaven.

#18 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

I wished our election were speedy, god, we have a year of this shit. Just condense it to 6 months.

#19 Posted by TooWalrus (13235 posts) -

Oh God, none of the above, please!

#20 Posted by gamefreak9 (2370 posts) -

@Dany said:

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

I wished our election were speedy, god, we have a year of this shit. Just condense it to 6 months.

O come on, i'm not even American and I love these media hypes! So much fun... i'm dreading my free time when this is over...

Online
#21 Posted by Giantstalker (1680 posts) -

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

Well, MPs themselves basically don't matter with the kind of discipline exercised by Canadian parties. The Prime Minister is an appointment that's been getting steadily more powerful over the years to the point that he basically dictates whats going to happen and only the courts can stop him. And let's not forget the Governor General's role in allowing him to prorogue parliament whenever he feels like, and call snap elections when it's most favorable.

Canadian politics are boring because the whole system is broken. Love my country, hate the way it's run.

#22 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

@gamefreak9 said:

@Dany said:

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

I wished our election were speedy, god, we have a year of this shit. Just condense it to 6 months.

O come on, i'm not even American and I love these media hypes! So much fun... i'm dreading my free time when this is over...

I hate it, too much time is spent of meaningless/pointless/timfillering shit.

#23 Posted by Skullo (646 posts) -

Newt Gringrich vs Mitt Romney. I laugh my ass of if Newt gets it because holy shit it means repubs are going to make excuses for his past until election day.

I would be scared of Mitt Romney if it weren't he such a flip flopping motherfucker from the northwest. I can't take any of those assholes seriously. But some of the rhetoric coming of their mouth I just have to laugh at because if I were to take them seriously I would be scared shitless.

#24 Posted by Skullo (646 posts) -

Every time I hear Newt Gringrich talk I want to punch myself or the TV, sometimes I don't know which.

#25 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

I hate both sides right. Obama is too much of a pussy and pretty much all of the Republican candidates are jokes. Ron Paul is the only one I like on that side.

#26 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

They're all mad legit.

#27 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1783 posts) -

Jon Huntsman seems alright.

#28 Edited by Ben_H (3379 posts) -

Jon Huntsman is about the only not-insane one. So the chances of him getting anywhere are basically nil. 
 

@Skullo said: 

Every time I hear Newt Gringrich talk I want to punch myself or the TV, sometimes I don't know which.

Smash your head into the TV, problem solved. Between the broken TV and your new concussion, you won't have to listen to Newt Gingrich because your TV won't be outputting anything and you will be busy in the bathroom throwing up. Overall I would call that a net gain over listening to Newt Gingrich.
#29 Posted by believer258 (11984 posts) -

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

I'm fucking moving to Canada.

Does your country obsess over how much the politicians commit adultery as well?

#30 Posted by Skullo (646 posts) -

@Ben_H said:

Jon Huntsman is about the only not-insane one. So the chances of him getting anywhere are basically nil.

@Skullo said:

Every time I hear Newt Gringrich talk I want to punch myself or the TV, sometimes I don't know which.

Smash your head into the TV, problem solved. Between the broken TV and your new concussion, you won't have to listen to Newt Gingrich because your TV won't be outputting anything and you will be busy in the bathroom throwing up. Overall I would call that a net gain over listening to Newt Gingrich.

Your ideas intrigue me, I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

#31 Posted by pjacobson21 (198 posts) -
@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

Fucking eh! (see what I did there?)
Oh and I'm Canadian, too. You really could not have described our current politics more accurately.
#32 Posted by Skullo (646 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

I'm fucking moving to Canada.

Does your country obsess over how much the politicians commit adultery as well?

There's a thing you must understand. For the electorate to even keep you in power/vote you in, you must be able to show loyalty to that one person. It's basically symbolism. As long as you're loyalty to that one person the electorate will understand that you will be loyal to them as well. If you show a wondering eye or lust towards another person that is not your spouse (female perferably to the voter at hand) it will show a character flaw in that politican. Some people make a big deal about adultery because humans are hardwired to be with that one person, so showing anything but love toward your spouse will get you nowhere.

P.S. You may note that no one is cracking wise about the Clinton adultery because that was a long fucking time ago and some years back (as well Gringrich's) but Bill isn't in the spotlight as often as Newt. So guess what? We're going to hear about his adultery more than Clintons.

#33 Posted by BoG (5191 posts) -

Jon Huntsman is the man. Shame he has absolutely no chance to win the nomination, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. As this is impossible, I'm voting for Mr. Obama.

#34 Posted by believer258 (11984 posts) -

@Skullo said:

@believer258 said:

@bwmcmaste said:

I love the American elections: so much extravagance, controversy, and silliness. It's completely unlike how we do things in Canada: a speedy election of relatively unfamiliar people, covered by the national broadcaster, and ending with general indifference on the part of the constituency in general.

I'm fucking moving to Canada.

Does your country obsess over how much the politicians commit adultery as well?

There's a thing you must understand. For the electorate to even keep you in power/vote you in, you must be able to show loyalty to that one person. It's basically symbolism. As long as you're loyalty to that one person the electorate will understand that you will be loyal to them as well. If you show a wondering eye or lust towards another person that is not your spouse (female perferably to the voter at hand) it will show a character flaw in that politican. Some people make a big deal about adultery because humans are hardwired to be with that one person, so showing anything but love toward your spouse will get you nowhere.

P.S. You may note that no one is cracking wise about the Clinton adultery because that was a long fucking time ago and some years back (as well Gringrich's) but Bill isn't in the spotlight as often as Newt. So guess what? We're going to hear about his adultery more than Clintons.

I see now, that makes sense. Still, I don't much care about a politician's personal life. I would rather know his past political deeds than who has been popping his cherry, but then a lack of loyalty to one person can reflect a lack of loyalty to an entire nation.

Actually, at this point, I just keep getting more and more apathetic. I do understand how stupid this is of me, to not really exercise my right to vote, but I can't see much reason to when it doesn't do much good. Bush Jr. got into office via the electoral vote instead of the popular one; my political knowledge is a little rusty but that says, to me, that I can't do a whole lot about a shitty government because it's just going to swing its decisions wherever it wants to.

If it were up to me, I'd throw them all out and elect all new people, none of which are old money. Many other complications would arise from that - like who would govern us in the meantime - but I'm just speculating and rambling at this point.

#35 Posted by Animasta (14711 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

Hey, I dislike the Republican Party too, but John Huntsman isn't a moron.

Edit: Also, Herman Cain is pretty much out of the race. He isn't coming back.

why? because he believes in climate change? he is just as backwards as the other GoP candidates, he just appears "moderate".

#36 Edited by _Zombie_ (1462 posts) -

At this point, reelecting Obama is beginning to sound like an attractive choice. Unless Huntsman proves that he's a good candidate(but let's face it people, when it comes to Republicans.. the rational politician rarely gets the nomination).

#37 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11908 posts) -

Of the bunch, I feel like Ron Paul is the one who truly sticks to his own principles. Yeah, so he's an unelectable hardcore Libertarian who wants to basically remove government, but at least you know he means it. The rest of those guys are posers by comparison, riding the current wave of anti-government populist anger to suit their own needs.

Personally, I'm most interested to see if Romney or Gingrich gets the nomination. Either way the president probably wins, but its merely a question of by how much does he win.

#38 Posted by hidys (1029 posts) -

pretty much all of them are crazy with the exception of jon huntsman.

#39 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2995 posts) -

editorialized premise is editorializing... regardless I'd have to say Ron Paul, he has some crazy ideas but he's on the right side of issues regarding the overreach of executive power since 9/11.

#40 Posted by TruthTellah (9307 posts) -

I disagree with the factually-challenged premise, but as far as being "legit", I would say Jon Huntsman is the most reasonable and well-informed candidate in the group.

The only problem is that the news media aren't interested in "substance". Gingrich and Huntsman actually had a nice sitdown discussion over the weekend where they looked at serious solutions to current problems for a hour or two. It was very cordial and scholarly.

CNN then called it "boring", cut to a clip of Rick Perry saying something stupid, and mused about whether Romney and Gingrich should make more personal attacks to destroy the other.

That's where our political discourse is right now.

#41 Posted by Deusoma (3017 posts) -

I'm Canadian, I barely know who some of these people are. :P

#42 Posted by Mageman (351 posts) -
Huntsman attended Highland High School in Salt Lake City but dropped out before graduating to pursue his passion as a keyboard player in the rock band Wizard.

Guys..come on guys.

#43 Posted by Everyones_A_Critic (6305 posts) -

Ron Paul because drugs are really the only political issue I care about.

#44 Posted by Boiglenoight (537 posts) -

Ron Paul. He's the only one who doesn't seem to be in the pocket of the Koch Brothers or some other wealthy private backer.

#45 Posted by TobbRobb (4732 posts) -

I don't know who these people are. :P

Nyaaaah

#46 Posted by bombHills (632 posts) -

Ron Paul!

#47 Posted by lazyturtle (1229 posts) -

Romney: No way to really know his position on things. While I think it's good that he's flexible, he's a bit too flexible to be a executive.

Gingrich: For a "smart" guy, he seems to continuously say stupid things and promote idiotic ideas.

Cain: Can't keep his dick in his pants..plus he's done.

Perry: I keep getting the feeling that GW Bush watched "Face Off" too many times and used the power of the CIA to make it happen. Simply put, he's a moron.

Huntsman: Seems non-crazy...I find that suspicious..

Bachman: Oh CRAP! I was vaccinated against small pox as a child....now I'm fucking retarded! Seriously...she's like the Planter's version of Willy Wonka.

Paul: Sometimes sane, sometimes nuts. I really like some of his positions. Others of his positions are simply ridiculous (the whole gold thing, pretty much eliminating government, etc). And even a few hypocritical (No big government. Also, no abortions.).

Basically there aren't any GOP candidates that would pass the sanity test for the 70% of the country that doesn't automatically vote GOP.

#48 Posted by gamefreak9 (2370 posts) -

@lazyturtle said:

Romney: No way to really know his position on things. While I think it's good that he's flexible, he's a bit too flexible to be a executive.

Gingrich: For a "smart" guy, he seems to continuously say stupid things and promote idiotic ideas.

Cain: Can't keep his dick in his pants..plus he's done.

Perry: I keep getting the feeling that GW Bush watched "Face Off" too many times and used the power of the CIA to make it happen. Simply put, he's a moron.

Huntsman: Seems non-crazy...I find that suspicious..

Bachman: Oh CRAP! I was vaccinated against small pox as a child....now I'm fucking retarded! Seriously...she's like the Planter's version of Willy Wonka.

Paul: Sometimes sane, sometimes nuts. I really like some of his positions. Others of his positions are simply ridiculous (the whole gold thing, pretty much eliminating government, etc). And even a few hypocritical (No big government. Also, no abortions.).

Basically there aren't any GOP candidates that would pass the sanity test for the 70% of the country that doesn't automatically vote GOP.

I should have had you draw up the poll options eh?

Online
#49 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

Ron Paul is the only one who deserves to become president. The other, as you aptly put, are total morons.

#50 Posted by kashif1 (1428 posts) -

Ron Paul and Mitt Romeny are the only ones who could possibly win the election, neither will ever win the primaries.