FYP to be closer to what you may see in actual AL.com news and other local media news article comment sections.

"Outside enviromental extremists" is also a popular Alabama GOP meme to cover ripping off utility customers in favor of the utility companies.

Doubt I'd get away with much trolling, too many people in the local Repub party know who I am and what my views are. I plan to just go and get some lulzy quotes and as much video as I can.

From your 2nd & 3rd sentence it sounds like you are just a hot dog vendor and not the owner of the MonkeyAIDS brand so I'm a bit confused on why you refer to the brand as "our hot dogs" in the 4th sentence.

Either way, it sounds like the answer to your question is yes, that both you & fredd serve dogs w/ extra aids unless Fredd is bait and switching his customers... Fredd doesn't sound like the type of guy that would advertise the MonkeyAIDS brand but actually serves cheaper Johnsonville hotdogs though.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...594.html?hp=r7

I wonder if the “establishment Republicans” anonymously quoted in this article are a bit overwrought? Of course, as an unrepentant bleeding heart liberal, I’m chortling like a hyena watching the Republicans lining up in a circular firing squad. It’s always fun watching the opposing party tearing in to each other like dagos in the Australian outback. However, the situation may not be quite as grim (for the GOP) as this article implies. Most of the constituencies noted in the article – such as gays, Hispanics, and African-Americans – are never going to vote for Republicans anyway; so why should the GOP give a rats a** about them? Most of these blocs vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, so the GOP might as well write them off as hopeless. The only constituencies cited in the article which Republicans might give a care about are “swing voters” and (maybe) women – although I’m not that sure about the latter category. (I have a feeling women are split about 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans.)

Contrary to what the article implies concerning the 2014 mid-term elections, (i.e. only old, “mostly white” voters turn out so the mid-terms don’t mean anything), I beg to differ. Republicans seem to believe they’ll do OK in the mid terms – retaining their majority in the House and possibly regaining control of the Senate. However, if that scenario does not develop or, worse yet, Republicans actually lose seats in the House and fail to retake the Senate; the long knives will come out. That’s when you see party leaders, (or those who are still standing), go after divisive talking heads like Rush Limbaugh with a vengeance. If there’s not a meaningful turnaround in GOP fortunes in the 2014 mid-term elections, the real war for the heart and soul of the party commences. At some point Republicans will get tired of losing and remove their heads from inside their rectums. (I love coming up with colorful and descriptive metaphors. Ha! Ha!)

Seems like duplicate thread.

As for the article, if the demographics go to the left. I think it also means the collapse of the dollar is going to happen. As more democrats get into power, the more spending will resume, the more taxation will resume. The more immigrants, unlimited immigrants, soon the population of the United States will rise until starvation. So basically saying the Republican party dies, and so does the country. First free food, then free houses, then free cars, then free heath care, then free gyms, soon everything is free and all that means is inflation and shortages.

It would probably best for them to lose in 2014 and finally have their civil war and perhaps moderate by 2016, but i think it is unlikely to happen in 2014. So instead they will be able to claim modest victory in 2014 and try to redo 2012 race to the bottom circus.

Steelhouse, be serious. You know free health care comes before cars.

Seriously, though... Which party do you think has presided over more spending growth?

Racism or idiocy, not sure which.

Obezy:

More like a very embarrassing mistake. I received the following note from a friend (Gary) on a separate message board where I also posted my pithy wisdom.

Dagos??????!!!!

I think you might want to check your dictionary on that term. I understand it to be a derogatory term for persons from Italy.

Guessing you meant dingos? Which is a wild dog like animal.

Hopefully you havent shared this with others.

Gary

I think my brilliant analysis can be characterized as a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. (I was going to ask a mod to change the word "dago" to "dingo," but you nailed me before Gary pointed out my faux pas. (I apologize to all Italian people for my goof. I have egg on my face.)

Totally agree. If your story isn't close to over, a biopic is idiocy.

I figured as much. But it's still funny.

Those were the neocons like GW and Reagan. But even during those years it was the democrats that wanted more spending. Yes, Obama was able to basically cut social security by freezing checks for 3 years then giving a raise in the election year. But, he still wants and expects to spend with the jobs bill, sequester, student loan relief, housing relief, food stamps rules relax, and recently infrastructure.

The budget is going to be balanced next year, and Obama will take credit, but he did not do it. It is the tight tea party freaks in house that everyone complains about.

Even though the budget will be balanced next year, how can you say that with $100 billion profit from the fed and all the low interest rates the government pays due to QE1234. The inflation will hit anyways.

Furthermore the housing hit bottom, and now people are going to start pulling money out. Mortgage debt will rise to compensate.

steelhouse:

I've just had an amazing epiphany. I've figured out how your political calculator works. Anything "bad" that happens is either President Obama's fault or the Democrats fault. Riots over in Egypt? That's President Obama's fault! The NSA spying on people and reading their emails - that's Obama's fault. Interest rates too low? Obama's fault. Unemployment too high? Of course, that's Obama's fault. NASA's Kepler space telescope quits working? Isn't it obvious!!?? A malfunctioning satellite is obviously the President's fault since he wasn't down there in Florida checking it out before NASA launched it.

On the other hand, anything that goes right - Obama doesn't get any of the credit. When something goes right, it's either the Republicans, the Tea Party, libertarians, or Rush Limbaugh who get the credit. The reason for this is obvious: President Obama is so clueless and incompetent that there's no way he can have anything to do with anything "good" that happens. No repeat of the 1930's Great Depression? We can obviously thank Republicans for that! Saving Wall Street with a massive $797 billion taxpayer bailout? Republicans who believe in free enterprise, limited Government interference, and "letting the market decide winners and losers" were obvioulsy responsible for saving Wall Street from itself. Low inflation and a declining budget deficit? No way Obama had anything to do with that ... he's too obsessed with taxing and spending! (Of course, we'll forget for the moment that sequestration - which was proposed by President Obama in order to avoid a default on the national debt - was the alternative to the Republican plan ... which would have been a default and who knows what kind of financial anarchy to follow.

If the sun came up tomorrow and somehow changed color from orange/yellow to purple or green, I'm sure Republicans (and steelhouse) would say it was Obama's fault.

Obviously you've never suffered the life shattering pain of having your baby eaten by a dago. They season it with parmigiano-reggiano and pair it with a Chianti. The horror.




The horror.

Fyp, though, not sure if italian

Hasn't the housing market been rising steadily in the last few years?

Sean Trende has a number of interesting articles, including many sceptical of the "Death of the Republican Party" thesis.

I'm skimming the headlines trying to decide which one is most likely to bring the best lulz.

Anyone know the preferred treatment for a serious case of the douche chills?

On a related theme, RGIII currently has MULTIPLE biographies in print. WTF?

Looks like San Antonio wants to host a GOP Presidential debate or something...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarras...upporting-anti

His three part series on the death of the GOP bounces between being more or less identical to what people have said in this thread on the one hand to making empty pointless observations on the other. The GOP is doomed in the current paradigm but things can dramatically shift in the future if they win over a demographic they lost in 2012, for eg (from the article) if Romney held everything else and won the gay vote he wins the popular vote.

The problem with the series is it doesnt try to address how the GOP gets from here to there. In another example he talks about how in the 1920s one could bet that blacks wouldnt vote Democratic and the Republicans would never win over the south but then the southern strategy happened - which demonstrates absolutely nothing for how the GOP should proceed and what flanks the Dems need to defend against.

Like no one saying the GOP is going to die means that they are guaranteed to lose all power and disappear and be replaced by another party probably called the Constitution and Jesus were Awesome Party. They are saying in the current form with the current policies they are an evolutionary dead end. They need a revolution sweeping most of their sacred cows to the side or they may as well just resign themselves to permanent national minority holding power in just some southern states and frankly even that isnt certain given latino demographic growth.

From one of Trende's articles:



The problem with a graph like this is twofold:

1) there is apparently a bias against the word "liberal" when people identify their own ideology, and
2) The opinion of the right that Obama is the most liberal president ever could skew Obama's ratings toward the liberal end of the scale.

But something Trende doesn't really note is that Obama won big even with such a wide discrepancy between the average voter and the rated ideologies of the candidates. It should be obvious that such data can't be used to argue that Republicans are not really out of touch after all.

Again, this could be the right wing moving farther to the right, which seems to me to be the case.

This is the first of Trende's questions. But I don't understand it. People aren't randomly choosing presidents.

If presidential elections were random, then you could basically run anyone at all and expect to win half the time or so. But we know that if the Democrats ran O. J. Simpson, they'd lose 100% of the time (assuming the Republicans don't run a worse candidate, which, I mean, maybe.)

So, yeah, elections sort of look random and coin-tossy, but this is because both parties are constantly maneuvering and jockeying for votes and influence. And that's a much better argument for the eventual resurgence of the Republicans than "we're having a bad run at the moment. Variance."


Edit, so in the answer to question 2 he writes:

Ugh. Then why write 500 words about it, complete with supporting charts and graphs? WTF?