Iowa caucus, call it

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:34 am

win-willard
place-ron paul
show-santorum

santorum, will end up the nominee IMO. for 2 main reasons. he doesn't have paul's head in the sand foreign policy and he doesn't have magic undies. all the rest of the alleged conservatives had their moment. i think they'll stick with rick, simply because nobody is left.

i get a crack out of the so called pundits who keep asking why mit can't break 25%. they say it's romneycare or he isn't conservative enough.

bullshit.

it's his religion. period. end of story. too many fundies (sup tart?) in the republican party to let a mormon win.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:53 am

smackaholic wrote:it's his religion. period. end of story. too many fundies (sup tart?) in the republican party to let a mormon win.

Yes, he's a wierdo.

In fact, I think Santorum should adopt a new campaign slogan starting from here-on-out.

Santorum 2012 - Don't Let the Mormon Win!

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:04 am

Jsc810 wrote: A truly sad group, but someone has to win tomorrow.

No surprise you'd regurgitate lib bile like a good little Obama cocksucker.

I'll call it for Romney.

As will I - in November as well as tomorrow..

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:13 am

Jsc810 wrote:

A truly sad group, but someone has to win tomorrow.

What is truly sad is that every single one of those dildos up there would be a dramatic improvement over the fucked up Kenyan halfwit in office right now.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:15 am

smackaholic wrote:santorum, will end up the nominee IMO.

He couldn't even win in his home state in 2006. How is he going to win nationwide in 2012?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:22 am

mvscal wrote:Kenyan

Tin foil.

:wink:

Go Coogs' · Post by **Go Coogs'** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:22 am

Everyone was hot on Huckabee in the ealry caucuses, but it was McCain by a large margin in the end.

I feel as though Santorum is the Huckabee of this group. He'll steal a couple of caucuses early and gain a lot of attention but Romney will win in the end.

How come nobody has bought into Paul yet? He is by far the most sane one of that entire group.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:23 am

Go Coogs' wrote:He is by far the most sane one of that entire group.

Uh, no. Ron Paul lost even a nodding acquaintance with sanity long ago.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:38 am

mvscal wrote:Uh, no. Ron Paul lost even a nodding acquaintance with sanity long ago.

Registering and posting as "Jimmy Rimjob" at one of the most degenerative shitholes in the history of the internet probably doesn't qualify you as much of an authority on sanity. Sayin'.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:46 am

Romney leads Paul by a couple of points in the latest Iowa poll with Santorum in third with his stock rising daily. My guess is Romney wins.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 am

2, 3, 4, 6, 5, 1

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:47 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
mvscal wrote:Uh, no. Ron Paul lost even a nodding acquaintance with sanity long ago.
Registering and posting as "Jimmy Rimjob" at one of the most degenerative shitholes in the history of the internet probably doesn't qualify you as much of an authority on sanity. Sayin'.

Bwahah.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:02 am

The fact that anybody gives a flying fuck about what happens in Iowa shows how truly disfunctional our system is.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:29 am

Mikey wrote:The fact that anybody gives a flying fuck about what happens in Iowa shows how truly disfunctional our system is.

This is so true. Who fucking cares?

M2 · Post by M2 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:32 am

Y2K wrote:
Mikey wrote:The fact that anybody gives a flying fuck about what happens in Iowa shows how truly disfunctional our system is.
This is so true. Who fucking cares?

The unemployed "grease spot" from orange country with around 150,000 posts this year.

You need to blame someone when you wander around in public with a "fanny pack" at Knott's Berry Farm .

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:19 pm

if knee high tassled suede boots are part of your work outfit, you don't need to be running appearance smack on anyone.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:27 am

Jsc810 wrote:Perry compares defeating Obama to defeating the Nazis.

Stupid motherfucker. That is an insult to all those who actually served on D-Day.

Not in the least. It is going to take a comparative effort to dig this sad, fucked up country out of the financial and economic hole dug by this administration.

Chimpy's wildest money shots were only a drop in Screwy's mop bucket compared to the oceanic, rough surf bukkake sessions with which Obongo has drenched the American taxpayer.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:41 am

Mikey wrote:The fact that anybody gives a flying fuck about what happens in Iowa shows how truly disfunctional our system is.

most people voting in Iowa at least know how to spell dysfunctional.

Idiot.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:48 am

Took you quite a while to figure it out.

Main Entry: dys·function Pronunciation Guide
Variant(s): also dis·function \ds, ()dis+\
Function: noun
Etymology: dys- or 1dis- + function
1 : impaired or abnormal functioning (as of an organ of the body)
2 : a nonadaptive trait or condition; especially : one failing to serve a useful or adjustive purpose in society
- dys·functional \ds, ()dis+\ adjective

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 am

War Wagon wrote:
Mikey wrote:The fact that anybody gives a flying fuck about what happens in Iowa shows how truly disfunctional our system is.
most people voting in Iowa at least know how to spell dysfunctional.

Idiot.

Fuck the spelling. What's it mean??

Oh, thanks, Mikey, but can you now explain all those big words in the definitions to me and all of the other dysfunctional Iowans?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:34 am

Iowans aren't disfunctional, the system is disfunctional. Iowans are in general good salt of the earth heartland Americans who, every four years, have their importance in the larger scheme of things inflated by the political press by a factor of about 1,000.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:44 am

Mikey wrote:Iowans aren't disfunctional. They're, in general, good salt of the earth heartland Americans who, every four years, have their importance in the larger scheme of things inflated by the political press by a factor of about 1,000.

Agreed, and the vast majority of Iowans will be happy when the media leaves the state, along with all of the fucking politicians. I unplugged my phone last week after getting a steady stream of phone calls from politicians with their recorded bullshit and surveys. We have the misfortune of being first in line for the caucuses and primary elections....something that's only important to our state politicians.

The usual participation in the Iowa "caucuses" is about equivalent to the population of Pomona, CA. Why should they count for anything more than a minor city in Los Angeles County?

We don't count for anything more than anyone else, we're just first in line. New Hampshire is next. We just have the good fortune to be the testing plot for all of the political ads that you will poor bastards will have to suffer through later. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone who has ever won a caucus in Iowa has ever been elected....aside from the incumbent.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:45 am

the political press will move on and largely forget about Iowa starting about, say, tomorrow.

In the meantime, let them have their say. Somebody has to go first, might as well be them.

H4ever · Post by **H4ever** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:48 am

Yea....never understood what was so important about Iowa other than voting first. Wonder why Kansas or somebody doesn't vote a week before Iowa to steal their thunder? Some sort of rule or law?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:52 am

H4ever wrote:Yea....never understood what was so important about Iowa other than voting first. Wonder why Kansas or somebody doesn't vote a week before Iowa to steal their thunder? Some sort of rule or law?

Other states have moved their dates up but we just change our date so that we can be first. It happened this year, which is why the caucus is on January 3, and our state politicians were willing to move it into December just to remain first. I guess they enjoy the media exposure and getting their 15 minutes which, thankfully, is almost up.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:57 am

H4ever wrote:Some sort of rule or law?

yes, there are rules and laws that govern how and when a primary election may be conducted as opposed to a caucus.

But I won't delve into them because somebody might think it's dysfunctional.

missjo · Post by **missjo** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:14 am

mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:

A truly sad group, but someone has to win tomorrow.

What is truly sad is that every single one of those dildos up there would be a dramatic improvement over the fucked up Kenyan halfwit in office right now.

In all Honesty do you really think America would be in any better condition socially & economically with John McCain & Sarah Palin in charge the last 3 years?
& how would they have made it so
especially since the problems with the economy were in the making long before he took office
I mean look at what is happening in the rest of the world

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:46 am

Jsc810 wrote:

A truly sad group

Interesting BBC article here showing how the limeys view this year's crop.

Yeah, I know...who gives a big fat fukken hamster cokk what those dentally challenged nimrods think. Still, some interesting takes from an outsider's perspective. I especially like "the focus in American politics on religious views of matters sexual seems very alien."

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:06 pm

Ken Doll Romney is such a blatant phony baloney pile of dicks that it's hard to believe that any rational adult would vote for him.

Santorum??

LMAO! LMAO!

Dennis Miller: Santorum's not going to get the nomination. He sounds like Charlie Brown's parents in the background.

Great job, Iowa.

You bunch of fucking idiots - Hi Mace!

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:52 pm

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Santorum said he also opposes the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a ban on sodomy in Texas and 13 other states. Even though he would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right.

"I thought that law was an improper law ... but that doesn't mean the state doesn’t have a right to do that," he said.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:30 pm

smackaholic wrote:santorum, will end up the nominee IMO.

Here's what I think happens from here on out . . .

Only a matter of time before both Perry and Bachmann drop out of the race, the overwhelming majority of supporters of both will then go to Santorum.

The former frontman for Newtie and the Blowhards stays in the race, basically as a stalking horse on behalf of Santorum and used against Who Let the Dogs Out and, if necessary, Paul.

That all points to Santorum ultimately winning the nomination, imho.

mvscal wrote:He couldn't even win in his home state in 2006. How is he going to win nationwide in 2012?

He'll win the nomination. The general election is another story, though.

mvscal wrote:Kenyan

Returning to your birther roots, I see.

By all means, keep it up. I'm sure it'll work out quite well for you.

War Wagon wrote:
JSC810 wrote:A truly sad group, but someone has to win tomorrow.

No surprise you'd regurgitate lib bile like a good little Obama cocksucker.

Uhhh, you might want to check Chip's posting history. Dude voted for your boy, W, twice, supported Giuliani in '08 and Gary Johnson this year, and also called a McCain landslide win in '08 the day before the election. He's a Republican through and through, just a little disillusioned with the direction the party has taken. Better late than never, I guess.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:31 pm

poptart wrote:Ken Doll Romney is such a blatant phony baloney pile of dicks that it's hard to believe that any rational adult would vote for him.

Santorum??

LMAO! LMAO!

Dennis Miller: Santorum's not going to get the nomination. He sounds like Charlie Brown's parents in the background.

Great job, Iowa.

You bunch of fucking idiots - Hi Mace!

Iowa doesn't elect the nominee, they just eliminate some of the pretenders like Perry, Newt, and Bachmann. Santorum came out of nowhere in the past week and was basically ignored by Romney the past several months. That won't be the case now, and they will target him the same way they targeted Newt and Perry, and will get the same results. Romney will be the nominee when all is said and done.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:39 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Uhhh, you might want to check Chip's posting history. Dude voted for your boy, W, twice, supported Giuliani in '08 and Gary Johnson this year, and also called a McCain landslide win in '08 the day before the election. He's a Republican through and through, just a little disillusioned with the direction the party has taken. Better late than never, I guess.
Damn, Terry, you've been paying attention. And you're right, except I'm more than just a little disillusioned. My votes:

1980 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 Bush
1992 Bush
1996 Clinton
2000 Bush
2004 Bush
2008 McCain

But if Santorum is nominated, then I'm voting for Obama.

What the right wing has done to the Republican party nauseates me.

We share the same voting record except for '96, and also share the same disgust for what the Republican Party has become. Right wing religious whack jobs are now dictating policy and platform and won't understand why they can't win a general election.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:46 am

Mace wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Uhhh, you might want to check Chip's posting history. Dude voted for your boy, W, twice, supported Giuliani in '08 and Gary Johnson this year, and also called a McCain landslide win in '08 the day before the election. He's a Republican through and through, just a little disillusioned with the direction the party has taken. Better late than never, I guess.
Damn, Terry, you've been paying attention. And you're right, except I'm more than just a little disillusioned. My votes:

1980 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 Bush
1992 Bush
1996 Clinton
2000 Bush
2004 Bush
2008 McCain

But if Santorum is nominated, then I'm voting for Obama.

What the right wing has done to the Republican party nauseates me.
We share the same voting record except for '96, and also share the same disgust for what the Republican Party has become. Right wing religious whack jobs are now dictating policy and platform and won't understand why they can't win a general election.

I rarely C & P multiple quotes but this series all require a response.

Terry, I don't care who Jsc voted for in the past or if he has called himself a republican, he's certainly not a conservative in any modern sense.

Jsc, your support of abortion and gay marriage nauseates me. The fact you're a scumbag lawyer heightens that sense. Oh, and I'll call bullshit on you voting for Reagan in 1980 since you wouldn't have been old enough to vote.

Mace, so being against abortion and gay marriage makes one a "right wing religious whack job"? So be it then, even though I'm not all that religious, unless you would call keeping my fridge stocked with Bud Light religious. In that, I'm a fervent believer.

But I love how people who support murdering babies or cornholers setting up house preach about tolerance while at the same time being completely intolerant of anybody espousing the least bit of religious faith. Go fuck your hypocritical selves.

As for Romney or Santorum, I'm ok with either of them but will go with Romney because I believe he has the best chance of beating Obama.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:07 am

Wags wrote:Oh, and I'll call bullshit on you voting for Reagan in 1980 since you wouldn't have been old enough to vote.

Huh? 1980 was thirty-one years ago. Thirty-one plus eighteen (voting age) equals forty-eight. You're calling bullshit on Jsc being forty-eight? Dude has sutures older than that.

I love how people who support murdering babies or cornholers setting up house preach about tolerance while at the same time being completely intolerant of anybody espousing the least bit of religious faith.

When do you ever see pro-choice or pro-gay marriage types advocating the banning of religious faith...as in, making it illegal?

Your psychotic conservative zeal is writing checks that common sense can't cash.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:22 am

psst... 31+18 = 49

and 1980 was 32 years ago.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:39 am

War Wagon wrote:psst... 31+18 = 49

and 1980 was 32 years ago.

Depends on the month, obviously. So how old do you think Jsc is? You don't think he's at least fifty?

Oh, and why did you skip this one...

Van wrote:
I love how people who support murdering babies or cornholers setting up house preach about tolerance while at the same time being completely intolerant of anybody espousing the least bit of religious faith.
When do you ever see pro-choice or pro-gay marriage types advocating the banning of religious faith...as in, making it illegal?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:21 am

Mace, so being against abortion and gay marriage makes one a "right wing religious whack job"? So be it then, even though I'm not all that religious, unless you would call keeping my fridge stocked with Bud Light religious. In that, I'm a fervent believer.

I didn't mention abortion or gay marriage, Wags, but feel free to continue ad libbing on my behalf.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:15 am

Jsc810 wrote:I was born on March 10, 1962, I turn 50 in a few months. The 1980 election was held in November, I was 18.

50 in 8 days - shudder, I'll be officially old. Beats the alternative, I guess. And I stand corrected then. For some reason I had it you were a year or two younger... but only felt and looked older. I still bet you're lying and really voted for Carter.

Van, I skipped that because I wanted to. Seemed irrelevant at the time, still does.

Mace, I'm curious then what traits you so despise make up a right wing religious whack job if not for their stance on abortion and gay rights?

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:57 am

Ummm, their stance on religion?