NEWS: GOP Prepares For Anal Rape

Unfortunately you get into the small southern cities of Ohio and it's the same way. There are also cities like that in Kentucky, PA and Indiana that i have personally been to.

Life outside their beliefs and the edge of their town just doesn't exist. It's quite frightening actually. You try to enlighten them and they just see you as an outsider with a marred opinion on how life should work.

I think there are parts of every state like this, just not to the degree there are in West Virginia. I've been to some scary backwards parts of Florida too, as i am sure you have.

This video saddens me. Especially the "The USA should be run by someone FROM the USA" lady. Face palm city.

That would include lots of non-American people.

Nice to see the ridiculous rhetoric is still a viable substitution for actual intelligent discourse when it comes to politics.

Before you cream yourself in glee you might actually want to spend a minute actually reading Don Cazayoux's political platform. He's FAR from a candidate lefties should be patting themselves on the back as a great upset. He's pro-life, against gun control, pro-war on terror (and from the phrase 'bring our troops home with honor' I suspect pro-Iraq), seemingly pro-Patriot Act and against amnesty for illegal immigrants. All of this would have taken you three minutes to find out ... but no it's way easier just to read "Democrat" and assume this is a massive victory.

What's most distressing is how many Democrats have their heads up their asses. You can't assume that negative views on Iraq will equal a win, if that were true Kerry would have taken the Presidency four years ago when the war was at its most violent and most unpopular. But he didn't, probably for the same reason the Democrats are likely to lose this time too: he assumed he had it locked up and forgot to actually run for President. Not only are the Democrats NOT reaching out to independents and moderate Republicans, they're making such a show about tearing each other apart they're risking losing a chunk of their own party's vote. The dirtiness between Obama and Clinton is making the Dems look ridiculous and turning swing voters off while McCain is smelling like a rose.

Can somebody take Mike Huckabee's fucking gun away from him because apparently he doesn't know how to handle one. You never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.

The GOP just can't keep that bigotry in check. It's leaking through like cracks in a dam.

The joke is bad enough, but something else he said made me think. All these people calling for less government regulation and oversight . . . . it's starting to make me wonder what they are wanting to get up to that is illegal under federal regulations

Are you always this wrong? Obama's been grabbing independent votes like crazy and he's running an honest-to-god 50 states strategy, and it's one that the DCCC has been emulating.

Also, only trolls use the (exceptionally loaded) phrase "pro-war on terror". Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They're against a war on terror headed by an incompetent administration.

I don't know. In case of Mike Huckabee, it just seems to be a weird allegiance to his anti-government ideology. Much like the Paultards, they seem to grab hold of specific examples of government waste and inefficiency and spread it over any and every argument of more vs. less government like better.

Mike Huckabee isn't that deep. Government bad. Jesus good.

I am against the "war on terror". It's a ridiculous notion, pandering to people scared of their own shadows and being used to curtail rights and freedoms. Little to none of which is making us any safer.

Of course, I'm not a Democrat.

(And I am specifically against the ludicrous concept of the war on terror. Such minimal additional precautions as are appropriate for maximal +safety/minimal -convenience are of course more than welcome.)

As a Louisiana voter that identifies himself proudly as liberal, I can tell you that while Don Cazayoux may not be my ideal representative, he's as good as I can realistically hope for. It will take 100 years before the kind of candidate I consider to be ideal will ever have a shot in Louisiana. The fact that Don Cazayoux won as a Democrat down here is stupendous in and of itself. At the very least, a representative who is registered with the Democractic party, will be far more likely to represent my views than any of his Republican counterparts.

Citation needed. In 2004, the war was only a year old, and though Bush's support was waning, it was no where near the abysmal levels it is at now.

False. Kerry was a wooden and unpersonable candidate, just like Gore. Kerry and Gore also fell into the trap of fighting the non-issue battles that the Republicans choose. Obama has shown every indication so far, in his campaign against Hillary of not stooping to her ridiculous shots unless absolutely necessary. He doesn't allow his opponents to choose the battles.

See above, re: incompetent administration. The terminology is certainly ridiculous, and the implementation has been inept, but I refuse to believe that we can't take steps to mitigate terrorism without sacrificing our civil liberties. It's a false dichotomy perpetrated by an administration that has never really been concerned about serving the people.

Anyway, dipshit, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent who is able to have the simple understanding that Democrats with a veto less majority is a good thing. I think if your head wasn't crammed up your ass, you'd realize Cazayoux's win was symbolic of something else.

Just because ignorance is prevalent, doesn't mean that the proletariat is stupid... just sayin!

Nevahh...

Just because ignorance is stupid? Or delusion is the apathy of involvemennt?

Yargit Yargit

Excellent. Thank you for your participation.

Anyway, dipshit, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent who is able to have the simple understanding that Democrats with a veto less majority is a good thing. I think if your head wasn't crammed up your ass, you'd realize Cazayoux's win was symbolic of something else.

Symbolism? Give me a break. Symbolism is the argument that people use in these kinds of debates when what they want to believe isn't meeting reality.

Frankly, independent or not, I've read several of your political news items and you always seem much more interested in calling people shit heads than you are at saying anything remotely intelligent. Now, before you get ahead of yourself, I think objectivity is overrated people SHOULD express their opinions for what they are, and certainly many people here do enjoy and respond to what you have to say. But that being said, in the quest to get out of this lesser of two evils corrupt partisan system people like you are part of the problem.

You want to know why some people still support Bush after everything that's happened? It's because people don't like being called names and treated like crap. So people like you, rather than provoking thought and dialogue that might actually change some minds, just make everyone more fanatical and push this country further into a system where the moderate and independent voices are lost. YOUR ACTIONS speak louder than what's written on your voter registration card.

Oh. Your post was a total dialogue opener, for sure. It was very much a "hello, let's talk about some stuff."

Reasonable discourse:

Opening wonderful dialogue:

Gentlemanly discussions:

See, I attack people when they act like cunts. You asked for an attack and you got one. You're opening post was troll like and I was tired and responded in kind.

But, by all means, consider yourself Gandhi.
.

I'm Mohandas Ghandi, and I approve this message.

The Republican Party is getting no more than exactly what they deserve.

Well, that's not entirely true, but I don't see anyone setting up nationwide "Hot Pokerings" for the GOP anytime soon. Still, this is encouraging news. Now let's just hope the Democrats can take the ball and run with it a little.

Are we really at the point where if someone disagrees with the "popular" opinion on here, they're considered a troll? Her retort was no more troll-like than any of your articles. That must mean that... nah, couldn't be.

Well certainly it suggests that people are willing to look beyond the label under the candidate's name and make decisions based on policies they agree with and who might be better suited for the job. And that, I agree, can ONLY be seen as a good thing.

I lose points here I guess I looked but wasn't able to find numbers on this ... but I feel (and this is totally unscientific so take it as you will) that in 2004 the war in Iraq was surrounded by a lot of media coverage that would make negative feelings more politically potent. Things like Michael Moore's movie, Abu Ghraib, and what seemed like horrific acts of violence committed everyday against the Iraqi people and our troops. So while I'll certainly concede that some polls may put the American public's support for Iraq lower than 2004, for me it's a matter of how easy/difficult it is to convert those feelings to votes one way or the other. FeartheReaper is acting like this is no contest and I don't believe it is.

The problem with 2004 is that Bush's plan and Kerry's plan for leaving Iraq were essentially the same thing. A few semantic differences here and there, but essentially they both wanted to "leave Iraq ... eventually." McCain and Obama are further apart in this regard, but do people disapprove of Iraq enough now to make those differences a deciding factor?

While I agree that Kerry's personality was also a factor, I disagree with you here. Kerry made his entire campaign theme "I am not George Bush" which was fine for the people who really hated George Bush. But those people were going to vote for Kerry anyway, the rest of us wanted actual policy. You're right Kerry did get pulled into non-issue battles, but the blame for that did not lie so much with Republicans as with his own campaign and its utter lack of a specific plan. At the very last minute he came out with this healthcare scheme that he touted as "self-funding" ... but this concept itself was built on the supremely stupid assumption that a bill might go all the way through both houses of Congress without being modified in the slightest.

True, Obama doesn't have this problem, but that doesn't mean his campaign is any better. People are cynical: they've heard the "I'm going to change this town!" speech many times before and of course every politician at the beginning of their career in Washington plays the same card. This is where Obama's "experience" becomes an issue for his campaign: will people believe that Obama's speeches are naivete talking or will they take them seriously? If his campaign focuses on plans, specific reforms, etc then I believe he has a good chance. If "change" becomes political slang for "not Republican" then he will lose.

From the looks of his website he looks prepared to run a good campaign, and I like the reforms he's proposed. But he will have to answer critics who will say that he's better equipped to make such reforms as a Senator. The Constitution is set up in a way that makes reforms very difficult to initiate from the Executive Branch. I'd say he has better odds with a lot of the stuff he's put together as a charismatic Senator then as a controversial President. So this concerns me.

Sorry, that was a much longer response than I thought. I got a little too into it

I guess the difference being I was not talking shit about the people on the site, but he was. My point was, which you missed, you can't act like a cunt, then get upset when someone calls you a cunt. He claims I am an example of the "problem," while doing the exact same thing. End of story.