Stupid Republican idea of the day

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil_Captor

That should be a QUALIFICATION. If Congress isn’t one long Live Action Role Play, nothing is! They play at representing us while lining their pockets.

:dubious: That’s not a fair comparison!

LARPs are strictly nonprofit.

[sinjin]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: By “the UP,” you mean, of course, Occupied Wisconsin?

Duh, that would be the Usurped “Michigan” Peninsula.

[BrainGlutton]

@andros

Well, on the one hand, fuck the Camarilla, fuck 'em hard.

On the other hand, as fen to the bone, I get to say that. They might be my severely mentally handicapped cousins, but they’re still family. Erick McDickwicket does not.

:mad: The Brujah are gonna get you!

[Kobal2]

@BrainGlutton

:mad: The Brujah are gonna get you!

Nah, they pretty much think it’s bullshit, too :).
Besides, I mean, Brujah might be cute with their tough guy, leather daddy, “I’ll use your spine as a beer bong” act, but then they find out what the word Crinos stands for and they’re all like “stop raping me with my own skull, god dammit !”

[BrainGlutton]

WSJ endorses Rand Paul for president in 2016, because he’ll lose. Apparently they’re disgusted with the whole field, or, rather, with the GOP’s base. After dismissing Jeb Bush and Chris Christie as unelectable (Jeb because he’s “insufficiently hostile to Mexicans,” Christie because he’s tainted with a scandal the author compares favorably to Bill Clinton’s):

No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.

<snip>

Yes, we can. Let’s move on to a YouTube video of Mr. Paul in April 2009, offering his insights to a college group on foreign policy. Channeling Dwight Eisenhower, the future senator warned “we need to be so fearful of companies that get so big that they can actually be directing policy.”

“When the Iraq war started, Halliburton got a billion-dollar no-bid contract. Some of the stuff has been so shoddy and so sloppy that our soldiers are over there dying in the shower from electrocution.”

Then he gets to his real point: Dick Cheney, who opposed driving all the way to Baghdad when he was defense secretary in the first Bush administration, later went to work for Halliburton. “Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good thing to go into Iraq.”

Mr. Paul’s conclusion: “9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.”

Cui bono—to whose benefit? It’s the signature question of every conspiracy theorist with an unhinged mind. Cheney. Halliburton. Big Oil. The military-industrial complex. Neocons. 9/11. Soldiers electrocuted in the shower. It all makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let’s not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

I sense a great disturbance in the GOP . . .

[elucidator]

So, the WSJ editorial board thinks that Rand Paul will lose for putting forth the outrageous notion that corporate power is too significant in our national political process.

Da fuq?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Wait, they’re trying to capitalize on Bush-Bashing that happened back in '09? Bush-Bashing that had to do with the Iraq war? Bush-Bashing to do with the Iraq war that was at least as plausible as any other explanation?

[Eutychus]

Phyllis Schafly wants the wage gap between men and women to be larger so they’ll have a better chance of catching a husband.

[elucidator]

Well, bear traps weren’t working for her, men kept chewing their feet off at the ankle.

[Evil_Captor]

@BrainGlutton

WSJ endorses Rand Paul for president in 2016, because he’ll lose. Apparently they’re disgusted with the whole field, or, rather, with the GOP’s base. After dismissing Jeb Bush and Chris Christie as unelectable (Jeb because he’s “insufficiently hostile to Mexicans,” Christie because he’s tainted with a scandal the author compares favorably to Bill Clinton’s):

I sense a great disturbance in the GOP . . .

Your quote has a lot of anger and pique, but I’m not seeing the same kind of batshit insane stupidity that I’ve grown accustomed to seeing from Republicans of late.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

So, the WSJ editorial board thinks that Rand Paul will lose for putting forth the outrageous notion that corporate power is too significant in our national political process.

Da fuq?

It makes sense if you look at the world from their POV, which is about fifty floors above yours or mine, up in the boardroom.

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil_Captor

Your quote has a lot of anger and pique, but I’m not seeing the same kind of batshit insane stupidity that I’ve grown accustomed to seeing from Republicans of late.

No, this is more interesting; it is a symptom of disgust from the bizcon/establishment wing of the party at the RW-populist batshit-insane-stupid monster they have (allowed to be) created. Their own insane stupidity is in assuming that what Paul said about Halliburton, etc., is not only wrong but flat-Earth wrong, and would play so with the voters; but, see previous post.

[BrainGlutton]

@Eutychus

Phyllis Schafly wants the wage gap between men and women to be larger so they’ll have a better chance of catching a husband.

Are there no men any more who want to marry money?!

[Revtim]

@BrainGlutton

I sense a great disturbance in the GOP . . .

Yes, many do seem to be quite disturbed.

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

No, this is more interesting; it is a symptom of disgust from the bizcon/establishment wing of the party at the RW-populist batshit-insane-stupid monster they have (allowed to be) created.

Not so much disgust as fear – with these rumblings about the evils of the Military-Industrial Complex, the monster has shown signs of turning on them.

[Grrr]

@elucidator

Well, bear traps weren’t working for her, men kept chewing their feet off at the ankle.

:D:D

[smithsb]

“he should come out and say so explicitly”.

Sure sounded pretty explicit to me. I may not always agree with Rand (or mostly ever) but he was spot on here. There was no money in Afghanistan - just some special forces and aging B-52s. The real supposed payoff was Iraqi oil and a defense buildup. You know, the whole putting flowers in our soldier’s rifles (while planting roadside bombs for vehicles) propaganda snowjob.

Cheney didn’t even give up his Haliburton stock while in office (ethics - what ethics?).

[Buck_Godot]

I’m sure that FX also believes the commonly held wisdom of economists that stocks are a good investment is equally faulty. I mean, after all, the Dow Jones has shown no increase since April 3, Further Spherix Inc, is at an all time low. This clearly debunks the myth that stocks rise in price over time.

[BrainGlutton]

@Buck_Godot

I’m sure that FX also believes the commonly held wisdom of economists that stocks are a good investment is equally faulty. I mean, after all, the Dow Jones has shown no increase since April 3, Further Spherix Inc, is at an all time low. This clearly debunks the myth that stocks rise in price over time.

Did you perhaps intend this post for one of the climate-change threads?

[Buck_Godot]

Yep, just noticed that too late to edit, sorry :smack: