The Goat Pen

really

The only place I see Johnson as making a potential impact is New Mexico.

The GQ piece on Johnson is nice http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politic ... -interview

I heard Gary Johnson being interviewed on one of these NPR shows and he didn't sound too intelligent.

10ac wrote:I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Fuck all you other sheep.

It should be pointed out that at the time of this declaration and epithet, 10ac's blood alcohol level was nearing middle age numbers. Following his nighttime trail of posts, this episode may have involved (but was not necessarily limited to) beastiality and liquor enemas.

This is the interview I heard.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/09/19/gary-johnson

I'm getting one of those breathalizer gizmos for my computer.

I'm shocked that Nixon won by only 0.7% in 1968. I thought it was much more than that...

Damn, things sure have changed. In 1968, Nixon won California and Illinois while Humphrey won Texas. Kinda discouraging to see that George Wallace actually won 5 states on the "I am a racist" platform, but at the same time it's kinda encouraging to see how far we've come in a relatively short time in that regard. Anybody spouting that kind of garbage these days is instantly marginalized, as they should be. Unless you're a rapper or shock rocker, then it's kinda expected. Still, I call that a change for the better. Ah, the curses of liberalism, no wonder so many of the regulars in here chafe under the lash of libruls. They want to go back to a simpler time, when (ahem) some folks knew their place (and that place certainly wasn't the voting booth)...

10ac wrote:I'm getting one of those breathalizer gizmos for my computer.

Nonsense. You don't stifle the literary process just when the creative juices are on full flow. Hemingway would drink a quart of rum and then do knife tricks; properly inspired (and bleeding like a stuck pig), he'd then put pen to paper and create some of the best works of the 20th century.

10ac wrote:I'm getting one of those breathalizer gizmos for my computer.

I have one in my car. They're a pain in the ass. Especially in winter.

hedge wrote:Damn, things sure have changed. In 1968, Nixon won California and Illinois while Humphrey won Texas. Kinda discouraging to see that George Wallace actually won 5 states on the "I am a racist" platform, but at the same time it's kinda encouraging to see how far we've come in a relatively short time in that regard. Anybody spouting that kind of garbage these days is instantly marginalized, as they should be. Unless you're a rapper or shock rocker, then it's kinda expected. Still, I call that a change for the better. Ah, the curses of liberalism, no wonder so many of the regulars in here chafe under the lash of libruls. They want to go back to a simpler time, when (ahem) some folks knew their place (and that place certainly wasn't the voting booth)...

Strom Thurmond in 48, Barry Goldwater, and George Wallace were all popular in pretty much the same places. In Goldwater's case he wasn't an actual racist, but his libertarianism put him opposed to the Civil Rights Act

Lest we forget: https://twitter.com/ChimpelleObongo

This is only my 7th Presidential election.

bluetick wrote:We knew Harry Truman, Mr. Romney...

and you are no Harry Truman.

Nice graph. I heard even more belittling of polls on Fox today, and even from the Romney campaign. That's usually the sign of a campaign that knows it's in trouble.

And yes, Fox goes so far as to even discredit its own polls.

The idea that polls are all basing their samples on 2008 turnout numbers without correcting even slightly for lower Obama enthusiasm is silly. And I know it's untrue as Rasmussen always uses slightly more Republicans than Democrats. And even his polls show Obama ahead in most battleground states.

You have to be a special kind of idiot to lose a race against an incumbent who's record is as bad as Obama's.

What about people who are absolutely giddy that he's probably going to win again.

You mean Obama? Just because a lot of people want to vote for him doesn't mean he's been a competent President.

"You have to be a special kind of idiot to lose a race against an incumbent who's record is as bad as Obama's."

You have to be a special kind of idiot to believe that Obama's record is bad. Just watching Peliosi (Ooooo, I know, as far as this crowd is concerned, the mere mention of that name discounts anything that may follow, but that's not my problem) on MSNBC, she was exploding the repub truism that things are much worse now than they were 4 years ago, she was saying that exactly 4 years ago last week, the chairman of the fed called the president and the leaders of both parties together on a Wednesday afternoon and said if they didn't act immediately to save the American economy, there simply would BE no American economy by Monday. So, um, yeah, I'd say things are a damn sight better than they were 4 years ago after 8 years of Bush and 6 years of a republican majority. You want to bitch and moan about a "bad record", you don't need to go back very far to find it. But it ain't Obama's record that's bad, irregardless of how many Fox News soundbites you care to believe. But again, that's not my problem...

Mitt Romney would have unemployment at 3%. And he'd have beaten China in a trade war.

This is a man who saved the Olympics using only $410 million in federal funds

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ral-funds/