It's true.
>Jenna Jameson Has Endorsed Mitt Romney<
I've also notices that many not so rich (poor) religious right-wingers want
a Republican in office.
So, it can't just be about money. But it is.
.
|
I've also notices that many not so rich (poor) religious right-wingers want a Republican in office.
It has been a tactic of Republicans since Regan to try to appeal to the poor, uneducated and religilous because there are more poor, religilous, uneducated people in the US. During the Clinton presidency Karl-the-Crook Rove really pushed for this to be the dominant PR platform for the Party -- I believe he implied that since the poor and uneducated make up the majority, the Party should say what they want to hear -- and, of course, promote presidential candidates that most appeal to poor, uneducated, religilous nuts (see Bush Jr & the other Republicans since the 90s). This way they get the majority of the population on their side while still creating policy for the super-rich at the expense and exploitation of the poor and the average.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office.When you have a Soul you want anything other than a republican in office.
I have a soul and I want a republican in office. Not Mittens, for sure, but a republican.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not surprised by this at all. Republicans are huge consumers of adult entertainment, despite all their lip-service to the contrary. For instance, you only need look at the preparations Miami's adult venues and escort services made for the Republican National Convention. And the state with the most internet porn consumption? That bastion of social conservatism, Utah. Jameson knows, despite having to play to the political game and claim to stand up for 'traditional values', Republicans will ultimately be good for business, and as a 1%er they'll be good for her tax returns as well.
Now, why anybody who isn't absurdly wealthy or a religious loon would want a Republican in office is beyond me, but her stance I understand. It's crap, and she and the rest of her ilk can take a long walk off a short cliff, but I understand it.
Now, why anybody who isn't absurdly wealthy or a religious loon would want a Republican in office is beyond me, but her stance I understand. It's crap, and she and the rest of her ilk can take a long walk off a short cliff, but I understand it.
I am neither wealthy or religious, but only one candidate running for president is anti-war and pro civil liberities. he's a republican. How does that make me crazy?
I am neither wealthy or religious, but only one candidate running for president is anti-war and pro civil liberities. he's a republican. How does that make me crazy?
Now, why anybody who isn't absurdly wealthy or a religious loon would want a Republican in office is beyond me, but her stance I understand. It's crap, and she and the rest of her ilk can take a long walk off a short cliff, but I understand it.
And in office he will behave no different than our current president on those specific issues. You really think Mittens, the ultimate "etch a sketch" blank slate of a candidate, speaks honestly and genuinely about any of his political beliefs? He's a pragmatist.
I've also not heard him say anything anti-war, and he refuses to speak his opinion on gay marriage (telling!) so these assertions are a puzzler to me.
maybe because Im not talking about Mittens. Hes a horrible horrible candidate who is going to (rightly) lose in November.
White, it's the Paizo message boards, not the HUAC hearings; don't be afraid to name names.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there are SEVERAL candidates that are anti-war and pro-Civil Liberties: Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, and Gary Johnson (even though I have some of the same issues with him as I do Ron Paul) to name a few.
While some of Ron Paul's ideas are actually good, the basis of his platform is still the sort of deregulation that lead to the financial collapse in the first place. How anybody can look at what happened and say, "That's what we need: less regulation!" boggles the mind. And he advocates a return to the Gold Standard, which which history has shown to be a fool's errand.
Paul, for that matter, is still a conservative hardliner on women's and gay rights, and has that nasty racism cloud hanging over him. Unlike other Republicans, at least, I would say a lot of Paul support comes from camps of well meaning people who only know a couple of things about him and are not seeing it anywhere else since our two party system effectively shuts down outside voices.
And Democrates are pargons of virtue...or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, theres Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Justin Amash for just 3 examples. (Although Amash isnt running.) I just hate seeing the broad brush applied to ALL republicans. I never say things like "all democrats want to see us living in a nanny/surveillance state". Because its just as false as no republicans appeal to someone with a soul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Jenna Jameson Has Endorsed Mitt Romney<
Wait, is all the porn going overseas now?
Actually, that could be okay...
|
And Democrates are pargons of virtue...or not.
Yes, but us Democrats really don't care that much about being paragons of virtue. We are more concerned with trivial things like feeding the poor, getting insurance for those who can't afford it and giving equal right to everyone, not just rich folks.
It's the GOP that is so concerned with family values (at least on the surface)...
And IMHO, Ron Paul is a fruitloop. Just sayin.
maybe because Im not talking about Mittens. Hes a horrible horrible candidate who is going to (rightly) lose in November.
Ahh my bad.
I still don't think of Ron Paul as being a republican. He's a libertarian who only ever ran as a republican with a sort of cynical acknowledgement that the Texas Republican Party wouldn't let an outsider win any elections in their state.As an aside, as much mud as gets slung at Chicago democrats (and rightfully so!) for unethical behavior and dirty dealings, why is there not the same level of scrutiny at the Texas Republicans?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>Jenna Jameson Has Endorsed Mitt Romney<
Wait, is all the porn going overseas now?
Actually, that could be okay...
Depends where.
As much as I have a deep attraction to asian women, asian porn is incredibly laaaaaame.
Good question, citizen meatrace. I dont know the answer to that. Here in PA, republicans pushed to get laws enacted requiring ID's to vote to end voter fraud. They won and the law went into effect for the past primaries. Now many of them are beginning to call for a repeal, as they realise that it doesnt allow them to cheat.
|
|
Well, theres Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Justin Amash for just 3 examples. (Although Amash isnt running.) I just hate seeing the broad brush applied to ALL republicans. I never say things like "all democrats want to see us living in a nanny/surveillance state". Because its just as false as no republicans appeal to someone with a soul.
Except that the Republican party is currently conducting a purge of every person who ever showed even an iota of bipartisanship or moderation. It's quickly becoming so that you CAN paint the party with broad brush strokes and not miss a crease.
And Democrates are pargons of virtue...or not.
Nope, but Republicans also hold themselves up as the vanguard against the encroaching moral decay of a decadent secular society. It's the hypocrisy that makes it particularly vile.
Mitt is probably going to win simply because he is 'not Obama'.
Except that the Republican party is currently conducting a purge of every person who ever showed even an iota of bipartisanship or moderation. It's quickly becoming so that you CAN paint the party with broad brush strokes and not miss a crease.
I disagree, although the GOP is definitly trying.
Personal anecdote: During the primaries, I took theJeff's advice: If I wanted to see the GOP changed, I would have to start locally. Mind you, I live in the Rick Santorum-area of the world, the area where the "Bible Belt" starts. I ran to become GOP commiteeman for my district and won. When I went to my first meeting, I was expecting it to be all rich old white males and police officers. To my great surprise, there was a very large contingent of more liberty-minded freshman committee people. To be sure, the establishment GOP still held the majority (it was roughly 60-40 split), but as I said, this is the Bible Belt and just the beginning. As more more of the establishment dies off due to old age, I see the liberty wing of the GOP overtaking the old social conservative establishment. And good riddance, I say.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mitt is probably going to win simply because he is 'not Obama'.
That idea scares me. Because I live in a part of the country where Obama isn't unpopular. And because Mitt scares me more than Obama.
I don't think anyone can call it at this point, and we shouldn't try. I feel like it's going to be a very close race.
Mitt is probably going to win simply because he is 'not Obama'.
I say he loses because even though Paul only carries 10-15% of the vote, those 10-15 will not vote for Mitt because he is pretty much Obama: a pro-war, anti-liberty corporate sell-out. Better to have a pro-war anti-liberty corporate sellout for 4 more years than a pro-war anti-liberty corporate sellout for 4-8 years.
As more more of the establishment dies off due to old age, I see the liberty wing of the GOP overtaking the old social conservative establishment. And good riddance, I say.
Maybe.
But it's not going to happen in time for the Republican nomination.If the GOP doesn't swing big this year I think it's dead.
As more more of the establishment dies off due to old age, I see the liberty wing of the GOP overtaking the old social conservative establishment. And good riddance, I say.Maybe.
But it's not going to happen in time for the Republican nomination.If the GOP doesn't swing big this year I think it's dead.
Absolutely. Definitely wont happen this election. But I could still see the GOP taking the senate. Not saying that I predict it, just that I could see that happpening. And youre right, the GOP as you know it is dying and very well might be finished off after November.
Absolutely. Definitely wont happen this election. But I could still see the GOP taking the senate. Not saying that I predict it, just that I could see that happpening. And youre right, the GOP as you know it is dying and very well might be finished off after November.As more more of the establishment dies off due to old age, I see the liberty wing of the GOP overtaking the old social conservative establishment. And good riddance, I say.Maybe.
But it's not going to happen in time for the Republican nomination.If the GOP doesn't swing big this year I think it's dead.
How sad is it for our democracy that the only way a new political party can form is by INFILTRATING AND CANNIBALIZING an old one?
I don't. It's going to be a landslide. The same "OMG not more of this" that followed Bush II and got Obama in office is what's going to win out.
Mitt looks harmless. There is nothing overly ZOMG or cooky about him. A very easy guy to vote for. The things he says about pride in America are gaining holds everyhwere. He won a very embattled, snark ridden primary, and now people in his party that said he'd never win the primary will vote for him becasue he's not Obama, and do so with pride.
The parallels between Obama's victory in 2008 and Romney's road now are staggering. All becasue they aren't the incumbant.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
Key thing to remember: Perception is everything in politics.
Who did Obama really run against...McCain or Bush?
To be honest, I won't necessarily be happy if I'm right, so, I'm not going to argue my point. Just offering it up as food for thought.
Because the opinions of a porn star uttered at the boom-boom room should be the entire basis of someone's voting mindset.
It's true, K, that normally anti-incumbency sentiment would probably carry Mitt in older days. I just dont see it happening. Too many people are still bitter about every republican president from Nixon forward. I will qualify this with an "In my opinion", though.
Because the opinions of a porn star uttered at the boom-boom room should be the entire basis of someone's voting mindset.
If I were running, I'd be far far far prouder of Jenna's endorsement than, say, Santorum's or Gingrich's. And shes probably smarter. Seriously, she runs her own production company, IIRC. Putting more Americans to work!
Edit-yup, I was right. from wiki: Jameson founded the adult-entertainment company ClubJenna in 2000 with Jay Grdina, whom she later married and divorced. Initially a single website, this business expanded into managing similar websites of other stars and began producing sexually explicit videos in 2001.
Just because she makes porn doesnt mean shes dumb.
|
|
Who did Obama really run against...McCain or Bush?
Mmm...fair point, even though McCain wasn't exactly falling all over himself to be associated with Bush at that point. OTOH, I think Romney is following in Gore's footsteps and making one of the classical blunders--he's dissing (or acting like he's dissing) the press corps. McCain and Bush both got a lot of traction out of treating the reporters following them reasonably well, but in 2000 the press pool really didn't think much of Gore (hence the possibly-apocryphal story about the press room at the Presidential debates filling with jeers whenever he was talking).
Yeah, we'll have to wait n' see. I'm no pundit, but I don't think I'm too far off the mark here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing overly ZOMG or cooky about him.
He has magic underwear.
He has magic underwear.He has magic underwear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.
LOL
Ok, nothing ZOMG or cooky that matters.
LOL
Ok, nothing ZOMG or cooky that matters.
That was just the soundbyte example of Mormon beliefs.
They also believe that native americans are a lost tribe of hebrews (how does this influence his foreign policy?) and that the garden of eden was in Missouri. Those are bonkers beliefs. Bonkers. Cookoo bonkers, like saying you're Napoleon. Someone needs to be chasing him with a butterfly net right now.Also, that corporations are people.
No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.
No one trusts the NEWS media. People think that alternative media sources are infinitely better, and since there are all sorts of alternative news feeds they choose one that echoes their personal beliefs. And it thus serves to radicalize their beliefs.
The mainstream news, until the Communications Deregulation Act of 1996, was a great moderating influence on the public. Even now I think it works to cool the heads of viewers, even if the quality of the reporting isn't what it once was, even not so long ago.
And "ratings" don't count anything but people who are viewing on a TV, in real time, through a Neilson box. Or through polls conducted over land lines or through snail mail. In other words, through OOOOLD media, by OOOOLD people.
Who the crap watches TV anymore?
I'll break it down a little further before I call it a day. Right now, the best hope that Mitt would have is to a) win independents, b) getting republicans to vote and c) convince democrats to stay at home.
a) I dont see Mitt winning signifigently more independents than Obama due to the fact that he is so very much the same as the incumbent. Minus the write-in votes for Paul and the votes that will go to Johnson and the Libertarian Party, what would have been a 60-40 split for Mitt due to anti-incumbency, will more likely be a 37-38-10-15 split of the independents.
b) This definitely will not happen. Mitt is mostly like Obama, with the exceptions of being for MORE deficit spending. This will cause a fair amount of Republicans to either sit out or vote for one of those other two listed above.
c) This also definitely not happen. Another way that Mitt is different is that he is actually MORE warlike than our already warlike president. he is also worse on civil liberties. Whereas our current president states that he wont indefinitely detain citizens while he signs indefinite detention laws, Mitt doesnt even bother to play pretend. Right now, the opposition party should be absolutely hammering Obama on war and civil liberties. Instead they just suggest he should be more war-like and more fascist. Instead of sitting out or voting third party like they would otherwise, peace and liberty democrats will vote for Obama despite his dismal record, simply because Mitt would be worse.
Just my 2 cp, of course. Time to go get drunk!
|
|
No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.
It's not a matter of trust, it's what diffuses into the discourse. There's no Walter Cronkite equivalent who's going to say something and have it immediately taken as gospel, but if a plurality of newspeople are talking about how Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet, that gets into the zeitgeist. Or if McCain is always described as a maverick, that colors the discussion. Right now, the conventional wisdom seems to be solidifying around the idea that Mitt Romney is a rich, out-of-touch, vulture capitalist (I heard that back there, Comrade Anklebiter!), and it really doesn't help him fight that perception when he takes almost no press questions on the trip to Europe and one of his campaign people cusses out reporters in Poland.
Look, I grant that very few people seem to read news stories through any more. But that just means that what most people see are the headlines when they log into Yahoo! or Comcast or AT&T. And if all the headlines about Romney conform to the narrative that he's a rich, out-of-touch, vulture capitalist, that makes it much easier for the Obama camp to make their pitch. It's not that reporters are liberal, although some are; it's that the vast majority of them are lazy, and once the narrative is set it's less effort to write things that conform to it. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and the younger Bush's campaign team all understood the importance of setting the narrative quickly, and I don't see that Romney has learned the lesson. Or maybe he thinks like you, that the media aren't important any more. We'll see.
a) Closest to without going over. It's a backhanded way to vote for the other guy, while still feeling ok with your decision to vote for Obama in 2008.
b) This is already happening.
c) There are less Democrats happy with Obama than Republicans that are angry with him. Apathy will take care of this.
But, we'll see.
EDIT: clarified a point.
One last thing to bring up, comrade K. There is nothing kooky or ZOMG out there now. The attack ads wont start heating up until after the GOP convention. It is my belief that the Obama campaign has got some serious dirt on Mitt and is waiting to unleash it after the convention. Thats just a hunch of mine.
But, we'll see.
Yeah, this is all speculation on mmy part. Just how I see it playing out.
No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.
The truth is the media is biased. Period. FOX is right wing, MSNBC is left wing. It's just the way it is.
If you want to be educated about politics you have to either 1) listen to both sides of the arguement with an open mind (which usually means listening to multiple news stations and reading lots of articles from CNN...a hastle), or 2) you realize that everyone has an opinion that to them seems valid, and respect that.
Full disclosure: I'm a republican. I'm also a dental student who's looking to buy my own practice right about the same time that Obamacare is looking to change the healthcare landscape. From my totally selfish standpoint, I want to be able to treat people the way I want to be treat them, and not be dictated or limited by goverment sanctions. I want to charge what I think is fair, and have people agree or disagree to my treatments and costs of their own free will without compulsion. I do NOT want to run a "meat factory" practice, which is what Obamacare would likely due to my field or work, where I get paid crap and the only way to put food on my table for my wife and kid (after paying off over a quarter million in debt that I took on to pay for school) will be to work as fast as possible, thus emphasizing quantity over quality. That kind of practice/mindset is not why I entered this field at all, not to mention a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
bunch of stuff about the PPACA that is patently untrue
Ok I'll rewrite this post so it's less disrespectful.
Where do you get those ideas?
Show me where in the PPACA it says that the government dictates your prices, or how fast you do what you do, or anything of the sort. I'm genuinely curious.
Frankly I doubt the dental landscape will change, as there aren't provisions (that I know of) specifically dealing with dental coverage, other than those health insurance plans that also cover dental (a shrinking number, to be sure).
The only way I see this impacting your practice is in the positive, as the insurance carriers will have to spend 80%+ of their money on actual care. Rather than reimburse customers, they'll likely just increase internal costs, including payouts to actual practitioners.