Presidential Candidate Caught Raping Goat

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:25 pm

Weird that they announced on a Friday so that it gets buried and not really reported for a few days and likely have to contend with another news cycle.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:40 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I think the plan is that Mitt Romney is supposed to appeal to moderates and they are bringing on Paul Ryan to appeal to conservative nutjobs.

But the conservative nutjob vote was already going to show up just to oppose Obama, so that's a lousy strategy.

I'd say it was maybe an attempt to "fire up the base" and appeal to high-rolling donors - except that Romney is already ahead on big-ticket donations.

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:59 pm

There are a lot of ways to slice it.

We may all think that the Proboscid base is fired up and was going to turn out to oppose Obama, the Romney campaign has extensive research and they actually know. If that research said enthusiasm was poor, well...
Even though Romney has huge sums of outside money, he's absolutely dependent on that edge. His ground game is very anemic (see previous point.)
Romney is losing. When you are losing, it is smart to take risks. You probably lose anyway - but as in a football game, if you are behind you usually lose whatever you do but playing it safe certainly isn't going to help.
We don't know what better candidates may have declined. Romney isn't going to say, "because Christie, Portman and McDonnell all refused my nod for VP, I present my #4 choice, Paul Ryan!"

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:47 pm

"Something is very wrong with what’s going on inside that impressive head of hair."

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:58 pm

Koumei wrote:Well, here we go: Mittens has announced Paul Fucking Ryan as his VP. So now Obama basically could be caught raping a goat and still have a landslide victory.

Even if Obama did rape a goat, slit its throat, smear the blood over his naked body while eating the animal's liver, nobody would know about it because the mainstream media wouldn't cover it. Anybody who tried to bring it up would be accused of being racist birthers.

That is why Obama is going to win.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:03 pm

What's funny is, you actually believe that. Where as the media in reality would have a collective orgasm on the ratings being the first to put that shit on air would bring.

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:15 pm

I think they'd pass up the momentary ratings bump in order to get The Chosen One re-elected.

Of course I am making an assumption that such an act would cost Obama votes. There are a great many people who would vote for him no matter what.

Thing is with Romney, his supporters in the conservative wing of the party aren't voting for him. They're voting against Obama. That is not a winning strategy. Bringing Paul Ryan on the ticket gives fiscal/constitutional conservatives something to vote for.

angelfromanotherpin · Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:34 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I think the plan is that Mitt Romney is supposed to appeal to moderates and they are bringing on Paul Ryan to appeal to conservative nutjobs.

They are bringing Ryan on because Ryan actually is the leader of the Republican party right now. It's the vision that Ryan espouses that inspires their ground forces. Nobody gives a shit about Romney, or trusts him, and with good reason.

It's a desperate move, because it actually puts the Republican core constituency (old white people) in play. They may dislike Obama, but they might like their Medicare more.

Also, npc310 is still going on about the mainstream media being in the tank for Obama? Really? Rich Bond publicly admitted in 1992 that the 'liberal media' claim was a strategy to 'work the refs.' Bill Kristol admitted in 1995 that "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

But that was 20 and 17 years ago? Maybe it's changed by now? Well...

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:20 pm

Media outlets calling for Mitt Romney's tax returns: All of them.
Media outlets calling for Obama's college transcripts: None of them.

Media outlets insisting that Mitt has something to hide in his tax returns: All of them.
Media outlets suggesting that Obama has something to hide in his college transcripts: None of them.

Media outlets questioning Palin's fitness to lead, intelligence, sexual promiscuity of her children, etc...: All of them.
Media outlets questioning Obama's fitness to lead, given that he'd never led anything before in his life: None of them.

Despite their name, FAIR.org is not fair. The tagline for Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". Does that mean they are? Don't be fooled so easily.

I can site studies from right-leaning sources showing egregious, leg-tingling, positive coverage of BHO. You can site studies from left-leaning sources that say coverage in the media is perfectly fair. That doesn't make any of it true. Just gotta watch both and decide for yourself. When they're glossing over questionable bits of one candidate's past, and zooming in with an electron microscope on another's, then it's pretty easy to tell the truth.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:42 pm

npc310 wrote:Media outlets calling for Obama's college transcripts: None of them.
...
Media outlets suggesting that Obama has something to hide in his college transcripts: None of them.
...
Media outlets questioning Obama's fitness to lead, given that he'd never led anything before in his life: None of them.

I'm sorry, but those answers were incorrect. The answer you were looking for is 'Fox News' and 'everything else in the U.S. owned by Rupert Murdoch/News Corporation and then some more.'

For fuck's sake, you straight up admit you don't think Fox News is balanced right there, and then you don't think there's a conservative bias in news? Do you think Fox News is left-leaning? Because that's the only option your self-contradictory spew of retardation has left you with.

You are the worst kind of conservative.

angelfromanotherpin · Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:43 pm

npc310 has of course changed his tune from 'the media is biased to one side,' to 'the media provides biased information for both sides,' without missing a stride. And then despite asserting that he can provide similar studies from the right-wing perspective to support his argument... he has not actually done that. I would be willing to put money on 'nor will he ever.'

Then he seems to be trying to draw some equivalence between Romney's tax returns (something released by all presidential candidates since George Romney) and Obama's college transcripts (I think the only presidential candidate ever to release these was Kerry; though several had theirs leaked). That the former is failing to adhere to a long-established standard of credibility in a way that damages their campaign and strongly implies that the actual release would cause more damage, while the latter is an entirely new standard created by desperate birthers solely for Obama doesn't register with him. I mean, has Romney released his transcripts? Is anyone who is calling for Obama's transcripts also calling for Romney's?

But we shouldn't be angry at npc310 for talking out of his ass; we should feel sorry for npc310, as we would feel sorry for anyone who had been brainwashed that hard.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:43 pm

npc310 wrote:Media outlets calling for Mitt Romney's tax returns: All of them.
Media outlets calling for Obama's college transcripts: None of them.

???

Tax returns are something that presidential candidates normally release. College transcripts are not. Mitt Romney's own father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for office. No candidate for high office has ever ran on the idea that he got an A in Sociology.

This is beyond a false equivalency.

We also haven't gotten the grocery receipts from any major candidate. However, none of that makes any fucking difference, because it doesn't fucking matter. Obama's college transcripts do not matter. He got a degree, and we don't give a shit. Romney very likely committed actual financial crimes. Obama may or may not have had to repeat Civil Procedure. How you can conflate these two without exploding is beyond me.

-Username17

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:44 pm

He's been presidnt for 4 yeaes
Frankly noone gives a fuck about his college transcripts. Romney doesn't want his college transcripts out either. Romney was a gay bashing asshole who pulled stupid hazing rituals when he was 17, and noone should give a damn. 17 year olds are fucktards, esp in the 50's.

Bain Capitol, Obama's last 4 years as president. Romney's taxes. Those matter.
Romney is running as the guy who can fix the economy, cause he's a bizdnes man. His biz acumen counts

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:02 am

And, it should be added, the reason we don't have a call for Obama's tax returns: http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:15 am

FrankTrollman wrote: We also haven't gotten the grocery receipts from any major candidate.

Oh great. You know they're going to start demanding those now, right?

(Only from Obama, of course.)

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:35 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Romney very likely committed actual financial crimes.

I think it is more likely that he committed acts that by any sane measure should be considered crimes, but are not in the U.S. thanks to our corrupt system wherein the rich are allowed to buy the laws they desire.

I mean they would sometimes buy a struggling company, lay off hundreds of workers to make the books look good. Take out huge loans, pay out that loaned money as dividends to themselves, and then dump the smoking wreck of a company when the loans come due. Robber Baron really is an apt title here. If you say, well tons of investment capital firms are doing it, fuck yes, because Bain Capital was the first and other firms copied their playbook once it was clear that they could reap obscene profits in this manner and not get arrested or sued.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:23 am

Conspiracy theory time.

npc310 is Tzor pretending he isn't slinking back in after his last five humiliations.

Discus.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:55 am

PhoneLobster wrote:Conspiracy theory time.

npc310 is Tzor pretending he isn't slinking back in after his last five humiliations.

Discus.

I prefer Shotput, actually.

I guess it's plausible, but it would require Tzor to take a remedial composition class, which I guess is plausible.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:02 am

It occurred to me, but the thing is, tzor truly believes that he is right and we are all wrong. He has no reason to come back under a different name in order to say the same rubbish: he'd do it with the same name and be sure that he can convince us we are so very wrong.

Psychic Robot on the other hand? I could see him doing this, given his main purpose was to troll us.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:51 am

Koumei wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: We also haven't gotten the grocery receipts from any major candidate.
Oh great. You know they're going to start demanding those now, right?

(Only from Obama, of course.)

Well of course, it's imperative for the right wing to know how much fried chicken, watermelon and purple soda the Obama household consumes.

PhoneLobster wrote:Conspiracy theory time.

npc310 is Tzor pretending he isn't slinking back in after his last five humiliations.

Discus.

I considered this, but Tzor usually made a point of his increased age and how we were all too stupid to understand because we were so young...

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:02 pm

npc310? Isn't he the dude that is so terrified of being raped that he doesn't leave his house without a gun?

npc310 · Post by **npc310** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:48 pm

I've been on vacation a few days so I forgot that I'm dealing with people who think making fun of how someone talks is the same kind of tough journalism as questioning someone's business credentials, financial activities, and that proves the newsman is unbiased.

You guys actually believe that the media is fair. Except maybe Fox News and the guys on radio, you people actually believe that the media is unbiased.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:...though several had theirs leaked

Do you think they leak themselves? Do you think the files climb out of the cabinets and present themselves to the NY Times? Do you think the computers automagically upload them to web? Of course not, that is ridiculous! Reporters go digging for them.

No, I'm not someone else.

No, I don't carry my weapon with me everywhere I go. I'm not licensed to carry.

If people really wanted Mitt Romney's tax returns, they bribe someone at IRS to get them. They haven't done that because they want the issue more than the facts. They want the smear more than the truth. Go offer some paper-pusher at IRS $100,000 to steal the files. You think they can't find one person who'd leak them in exchange for $100 grand in cash? Be realistic.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:21 pm

npc310 wrote:Do you think they leak themselves? Do you think the files climb out of the cabinets and present themselves to the NY Times? Do you think the computers automagically upload them to web? Of course not, that is ridiculous! Reporters go digging for them.

Actually, they become leaked when someone who already has access to them decides to put them in public circulation. When something is leaked, that specifically means that reporters didn't have access to them, and then someone who is not a reporter approached reporters and gave it to them.

That is literally the opposite of digging.

npc310 wrote:If people really wanted Mitt Romney's tax returns, they bribe someone at IRS to get them. They haven't done that because they want the issue more than the facts. They want the smear more than the truth. Go offer some paper-pusher at IRS $100,000 to steal the files. You think they can't find one person who'd leak them in exchange for $100 grand in cash? Be realistic.

Except for the part where that is illegal, and they would be arrested.

No one payed Deep Throat. No one payed Assange. Journalists never bribe for information, because that would be illegal, unethical, and their boss would fire them for doing it, and refuse to run the story.

The way that news organizations get information that is private is by being prestigious and respected for their integrity, so that people who want to give out information give it out to them. Bribing is generally the antithesis of that.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:47 pm

npc310 wrote:You guys actually believe that the media is fair. Except maybe Fox News and the guys on radio, you people actually believe that the media is unbiased.

Why would you think we believe that? Did you not see the chart? Of course the media is biased. Frank had a really good example of how we know it's biased - lunatic right-wing proposals are given air-time, and moderate left-wing proposals are barely present.

If people really wanted Mitt Romney's tax returns, they bribe someone at IRS to get them. They haven't done that because they want the issue more than the facts.

If the Romney campaign believed the issue was more damaging than the facts, they would release the facts. That's not even up for debate, that's literally the only reason this is still even a thing.

Why someone would choose not to risk being caught committing a serious crime to get the facts when the issue is doing the job all by itself... should be obvious.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:28 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
npc310 wrote:You guys actually believe that the media is fair. Except maybe Fox News and the guys on radio, you people actually believe that the media is unbiased.

Why would you think we believe that? Did you not see the chart?

You must understand, npc310 is a lying liar who prefers to live in a world of willful ignorance. He bounces from ridiculous claim and speculation to the next, and any time he is called on facts he just moves on to the next rather than re-evaluating his position.

I can say he is 100% a liar because he continues misrepresenting that quote by Obama in his every post, despite that he now knows that it was a completely false sideshow by conservatives since they would prefer to fabricate issues than debate real ones.

There are two major news outlets which are basically propaganda machines. FoxNews (Republican) and MSNBC (Democrat). Those two likely would either ignore or try to put positive spin of their head candidate raping a goat. The rest of the for-profit news corps are basically fighting for eyeballs and will publish whatever gets them viewers.

Nobody here believes media is unbiased, but npc310 must cling to this fabricated issue that there is a liberal media that has an agenda. Just as he must cling to his fabricated notion that nobody is allowed be critical of Obama without being labeled a racist despite that it happens constantly.

The only media organizations I would expect to attempt bribing the IRS would be the ones who actually conducted illegal activity bribing officials and gaining unlawful access to voicemails. However, those organizations were owned by Rupert Murdoch and are tasked with his conservative propaganda, so we won't be seeing them committing illegal acts to harm Romney.

Anywho, Angel nailed it.

angelfromanotherpin wrote: If the Romney campaign believed the issue was more damaging than the facts, they would release the facts. That's not even up for debate, that's literally the only reason this is still even a thing.

Why someone would choose not to risk being caught committing a serious crime to get the facts when the issue is doing the job all by itself... should be obvious.

Yep.