2012 Election Thread

[quote name='berzirk'] it was a small-scale event, that only grew because it was politicized by conservative talk radio, and we're nearing the election..[/QUOTE]

The Charles Woods aspect proves this. The man's been rolled out on every Right Wing News program since he came out of the crazy closet. Megyn Kelly , Glenn Beck , Hannnity , Lars Larson etc.. Heres a guy who claims his son ,( A Navy Seal FFS! ), was "murdered".

Shameless.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I was suggesting that probably a quarter of our ambassadors are in harm's way. Something tells me that them being on the ground there makes them quite aware. Do you really think that if one of them said they felt un-safe that the Obama administration would say 'Tough it out sparky!'? Come on now. I'm no Obama fan, but that's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

IMHO, in dangerous countries we should have marines protecting the ambassadors instead of a bunch of rent-a-cops. And the Marines should have fully loaded semi-automatic rifles instead of weapons filled with blanks.

The military relies too much on mercs and contractors.
 
[quote name='camoor']IMHO, in dangerous countries we should have marines protecting the ambassadors instead of a bunch of rent-a-cops. And the Marines should have fully loaded semi-automatic rifles instead of weapons filled with blanks.

The military relies too much on mercs and contractors.[/QUOTE]

Should the French Consulate in NYC do this too? When the shits of dumbness were all in a tizzy about freedom fries and toast, should the french security have shot them down if they made an aggressive move? What if the same knuckleheads decided to protest the Afghan Embassy and got ugly. Would the Afghan soldiers protecting the embassy have the right, neigh, the DUTY! to protect their embassy?

On to this BS about sending in planes and choppers. The Benghazi consulate was not off in the wilderness. It was in the middle of a city. That means no dropping bombs unless you want to level a block or two, of course in doing so you'd kill the ambassador and the other 3 as well but they don't like to think about that on AM Radio...
 
In the day and age where we have instant audio/video communication, can fly to virtually anywhere in the world in about a day (give or take a few hours) and major decisions tend to go through large groups (Congress, UN, etc.) - why the heck do we even bother having embassies in hostile countries to begin with?

Close 'em down. We can still have embassies in travel-friendly countries to allow for US Citizens who are abroad and run into issues, but if someone is traveling to Libya, just let them know it's Dangerous to go Alone and tell them to have a good time.
 
[quote name='nasum']Should the French Consulate in NYC do this too? When the shits of dumbness were all in a tizzy about freedom fries and toast, should the french security have shot them down if they made an aggressive move? What if the same knuckleheads decided to protest the Afghan Embassy and got ugly. Would the Afghan soldiers protecting the embassy have the right, neigh, the DUTY! to protect their embassy?

On to this BS about sending in planes and choppers. The Benghazi consulate was not off in the wilderness. It was in the middle of a city. That means no dropping bombs unless you want to level a block or two, of course in doing so you'd kill the ambassador and the other 3 as well but they don't like to think about that on AM Radio...[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty shitty way to try and prove your point. NYC is not part of a dangerous country, NYC itself isn't even all that dangerous. When was the last time they had any sort of ambassadorial incident caused by locals? The worst I can see happening is that a Frenchy tries to cut the morning line for bagels and gets the finger (Sacre bleu!)
 
[quote name='camoor']

The military relies too much on mercs and contractors.[/QUOTE]

But the private sector can always do it more efficiently, and better.:)
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']But the private sector can always do it more efficiently, and better.:)[/QUOTE]

They are so efficient there isn't even a need to establish a bidding process. We just know they will do a good job.

Since you mentioned the private sector doing it more efficiently, does anyone know what Dick Cheney's kickback was from Haliburton for the war in Iraq?
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']They are so efficient there isn't even a need to establish a bidding process. We just know they will do a good job.

Since you mentioned the private sector doing it more efficiently, does anyone know what Dick Cheney's kickback was from Haliburton for the war in Iraq?[/QUOTE]

Enough to reanimate his corpse.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']They are so efficient there isn't even a need to establish a bidding process. We just know they will do a good job.

Since you mentioned the private sector doing it more efficiently, does anyone know what Dick Cheney's kickback was from Haliburton for the war in Iraq?[/QUOTE]
Technically $0...at least while he was in office. He got at least $34 million from selling stock right before he got on the ticket and $800k? total in deferred salary for the first 3 years of his term. Whatever he has left goes towards and irreversible charitable trust. As for after his terms, who knows.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I know it must have thrown you for a loop when I mentioned I'm not a Democrat, or even left-leaning, but I expected a better response.[/quote]
And I'm not the right wing either.


[quote name='berzirk']Clak already nailed it-who are we at war with due to this "crisis"? Libyans? The Taliban? The attacker, who they believe is already dead? I missed the declaration of war, and who the autonomous country or boundary is that we're at war with.[/quote]
I think the both of you are being pedantic. The act and the country's inability to live up to its international obligations to provide adequate security justifies an armed intervention by the United States to defend its diplomats.

[quote name='berzirk']Do you really think that if one of them said they felt un-safe that the Obama administration would say 'Tough it out sparky!'? Come on now. I'm no Obama fan, but that's ridiculous. [/quote]
That's exactly what happened. Have you not been following the news? Obama was even personally asked who denied the request during one of the debates.

“Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach” --Chris Stevens

He wanted increased security over what he already had and the administration not only denied his request but withdrew his 16 man security team in August, to be replaced by local security that he told them was inadequate.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/speci...evens-worried-about-security-threats-al-qaeda
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57536446/ambassador-warned-libya-was-volatile-and-violent/

[quote name='berzirk']Is it possible to give a cause for something, then later find out that your information was bad, or you were incorrect?[/QUOTE]
But we know much of what the administration knew. They had a surveillance drone on station during the attack, feeding them real time information. If they had any misconceptions in the immediate aftermath they certainly knew within 24 hours when the CIA station chief told them in no uncertain terms that it was an attack by militants. If he truly was given incorrect information in the beginning they should've come out with the truth immediately, they didn't. They clung to that narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Not to be a prick, but you come off as completely uninformed on this issue, which is not surprising since you seem to regard it with little importance.

Of course Obama doesn't personally oversee embassy security. There is a suggestion that security was turned over to locals for political reasons but we're still talking about underlings in the administration. I don't blame him personally for the situation being what it was, but the ball is in his court once the attack started as he is the only one who can authorize military action in a sovereign nation where we are not at war. The aftermath and their unwillingness to change their story when it was clearly not correct is also on him.

There is an allegation that Obama personally overruled Hillary to deny that security request but the source is completely unreliable. I don't believe it's true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']In the day and age where we have instant audio/video communication, can fly to virtually anywhere in the world in about a day (give or take a few hours) and major decisions tend to go through large groups (Congress, UN, etc.) - why the heck do we even bother having embassies in hostile countries to begin with?

Close 'em down. We can still have embassies in travel-friendly countries to allow for US Citizens who are abroad and run into issues, but if someone is traveling to Libya, just let them know it's Dangerous to go Alone and tell them to have a good time.[/QUOTE]

I actually kind of agree with this.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']I actually kind of agree with this.[/QUOTE]

The less stated purpose for embassies is obviously processing potential immigration from that country. Not sure how it would be affected without embassies.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's a pretty shitty way to try and prove your point. NYC is not part of a dangerous country, NYC itself isn't even all that dangerous. When was the last time they had any sort of ambassadorial incident caused by locals? The worst I can see happening is that a Frenchy tries to cut the morning line for bagels and gets the finger (Sacre bleu!)[/QUOTE]
He's right though, if we did that we'd have a hard time explaining why we won't let other countries do the same.

I'll never forget flying into Delhi international airport and seeing guards carrying AK47s around, was an unsettling sight to say the least.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And I'm not the right wing either.[/quote]

hack. liar. you're full of it; you love that Stevens is dead, so you can harp on that fact to bray about something you already wanted to happen - Obama is elected out of office. Obama's foreign policy was untouchable from the typical, droll right-wing angle of "lol Democrats are pussies and bow to the French." Now you get to dance around mere allegations that Obama wanted Stevens dead, and was personally responsible for making it happen.

It's yout Vince Foster moment for Obama's Clinton. Preposterous suggestions, blown substantially out of proportion by biased, vested plutocrat interests - so y'all can elect your tax-cutting, deficit-exploding new gilded age overlord, Romney.

There is an allegation that Obama personally overruled Hillary to deny that security request but the source is completely unreliable. I don't believe it's true.
Click to expand...

So why bring up something that is merely alleged, unverified, and you don't believe?

There is an allegation that Romney is the son of red Soviet spies. I don't believe it's true.

derp.
 
In a world of us versus them, you're either with us or you're one of them.

And **** them.

---

[quote name='RealDeals']The less stated purpose for embassies is obviously processing potential immigration from that country. Not sure how it would be affected without embassies.[/QUOTE]

While not a perfect solution, I want to default to the reply of "internet".

I understand that there are some areas of the world that are lesser developed and do not have much access to internet (then again, there are some areas that are lesser developed and have better access to internet than we do...), so this might make for a bit of a hardship on some folks, but since there isn't a US embassy in every city, the immigration aspect of it is already a hardship as they already have to travel.
 
I hate fence sitters, you people have to be the smuggest bastards on the face of the earth. You think you're better than everyone else because you're "independent" or "moderate", which is most often times complete bullshit. I'm not even registered to a damn party, do you see me waving my dick around like I'm better than everyone because of it?
 
When the majority of your posts are e-penis waving simply because it's a day that ends in "Y", you don't need to find excuses to do it otherwise.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And I'm not the right wing either.[/quote]
HAHAHAHA...are you trying to sell me a bridge? You repeat their talking points for the irony factor right?:rofl:

You're not fooling anyone.
 
[quote name='Clak']I hate fence sitters, you people have to be the smuggest bastards on the face of the earth. You think you're better than everyone else because you're "independent" or "moderate", which is most often times complete bullshit. I'm not even registered to a damn party, do you see me waving my dick around like I'm better than everyone because of it?[/QUOTE]

Agreed. There's really no way to truly be a fence sitter unless you just have no principles, values or beliefs. I mean you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but that's not really sitting on the fence--it's just being on a different side of the fence on those two broad categories of issues.

But for most individual issues there isn't a lot of gray area between left and right views. You're either for higher taxers and a big social safety net, or your against it, you're for gay marriage or against it, your pro-life or pro-choice etc.

Yeah, there's matter of degree in terms of things like taxes, foreign policy (interventionist, isolationist or in between) etc., but you're still on one side of the fence or the other if you're remotely informed and have any kind of opinion on the issues. Some just have more extreme views and are further from the fence is all. Most people are still clearly on one side or the other.
 
Yet there still are people on the fence because they can't figure out what they want to support more. Lower taxes and less government, or "liberal" social issues (woman's choice, gays marrying, etc). It is up to the candidates to make them decide what is more important, and that is where the battle will always be.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Yet there still are people on the fence because they can't figure out what they want to support more. Lower taxes and less government, or "liberal" social issues (woman's choice, gays marrying, etc). It is up to the candidates to make them decide what is more important, and that is where the battle will always be.[/QUOTE]
Think about what you just said there...

Also, if civil rights like woman's choice and same-sex marriage are "liberal" issues, wouldn't that mean that a conservative stance is anti-civil rights?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Yet there still are people on the fence because they can't figure out what they want to support more. Lower taxes and less government, or "liberal" social issues (woman's choice, gays marrying, etc). It is up to the candidates to make them decide what is more important, and that is where the battle will always be.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

You meant the deciding between sensible policy and 'gods, gays and guns'

We'll see...
 
Think about what you just said there...Also, if civil rights like woman's choice and same-sex marriage are "liberal" issues, wouldn't that mean that a conservative stance is anti-civil rights?
Click to expand...
Notice the quotes around "liberal" issues, showing that I don't feel that they are that way. And if you looked through my post history on here you'd see that everytime it is brought up that I'm fine with both issues. And no, I wouldn't say that a conservative stance is anti-civil rights, because I don't think either of those two issues would fall under the umbrella of civil rights.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And I'm not the right wing either.

I think the both of you are being pedantic. The act and the country's inability to live up to its international obligations to provide adequate security justifies an armed intervention by the United States to defend its diplomats.

That's exactly what happened. Have you not been following the news? Obama was even personally asked who denied the request during one of the debates.

“Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach” --Chris Stevens

He wanted increased security over what he already had and the administration not only denied his request but withdrew his 16 man security team in August, to be replaced by local security that he told them was inadequate.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/speci...evens-worried-about-security-threats-al-qaeda
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57536446/ambassador-warned-libya-was-volatile-and-violent/


But we know much of what the administration knew. They had a surveillance drone on station during the attack, feeding them real time information. If they had any misconceptions in the immediate aftermath they certainly knew within 24 hours when the CIA station chief told them in no uncertain terms that it was an attack by militants. If he truly was given incorrect information in the beginning they should've come out with the truth immediately, they didn't. They clung to that narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Not to be a prick, but you come off as completely uninformed on this issue, which is not surprising since you seem to regard it with little importance.

Of course Obama doesn't personally oversee embassy security. There is a suggestion that security was turned over to locals for political reasons but we're still talking about underlings in the administration. I don't blame him personally for the situation being what it was, but the ball is in his court once the attack started as he is the only one who can authorize military action in a sovereign nation where we are not at war. The aftermath and their unwillingness to change their story when it was clearly not correct is also on him.

[/QUOTE]

So I read the CBS article, and you're absolutely right. It says there was a request for 11 bodyguards. I don't know what the process is for sending them over or increasing security, nor do I know what the normal timeframe to act on those things is. If this instance was a break from what the US has traditionally done, then shame on the administration and leaders who drug their feet.

The article is the most I've read on the topic, because I still view it as a complete political non-issue. Also in the article, I don't see anything that establishes Obama knew from the onset, and prior to his speech, that a video wasn't the cause or primary factor. Again...it's a non-issue, so I don't really care. Even if he was outright lying...I don't really care. I care that he continues to use drones all over the region to kill suspected militants and any civilian that is surrounding them. I care that he thinks it's OK to assasinate US citizens. I care that he has expanded spying on US citizens. I care that he beats his chest for the death of Osama like he was somehow the reason it got done, and nobody else could have made the call. Those are the biggest reasons why I don't think all that highly of Obama.

Regarding fence sitting, that's a lousy position. To be openly Independent and having opinions on issues is not fence sitting, and that does make me better than Democrats and Republicans. I acknowledge the snobbery, and finally get the atheist smugness that used to have me baffled. It's annoying, but like an atheist, I truly think I'm right, and supporters of various groups I disassociate myself with, are short-sighted idiots. To me, anyone who agrees with most positions of either political party is too stubborn to form their own opinions on issues, and instead need someone else to tell you what to think.

So I definitely wave my dick over my Independence. If I had a Republican or a Democrat's dick, other than the usual waving at a misstress or young male aid, I would be scared to wave it around too.
 
There is a difference between an undecided voter and someone who sees themselves as being above any party. They exude an air of self importance, it's what I get from bob much of the time. It's almost like he feels he's above it all, and that's bullshit. You don't want to vote for any party, that's fine, but don't try and make us believe that you're somehow above any party.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Notice the quotes around "liberal" issues, showing that I don't feel that they are that way. And if you looked through my post history on here you'd see that everytime it is brought up that I'm fine with both issues. And no, I wouldn't say that a conservative stance is anti-civil rights, because I don't think either of those two issues would fall under the umbrella of civil rights.[/QUOTE]
I highlighted the "low taxes and smaller government" part because we should all know that it's empty rhetoric especially when the Obama administration was the one that actually lost 636,000 public sector jobs in the first term alone.

Here's a handy reference article for comparison: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/07/economic-policy

I can't see how choice and marriage aren't civil rights issues. Should the government or a woman be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your balls? Should a government be able to give preferential treatment, under the law, to hetero marriages over same-sex ones? It's all about equal and fair treatment under the law. This is the very heart of what a "civil right" is.

[quote name='Clak']There is a difference between an undecided voter and someone who sees themselves as being above any party. They exude an air of self importance, it's what I get from bob much of the time. It's almost like he feels he's above it all, and that's bullshit. You don't want to vote for any party, that's fine, but don't try and make us believe that you're somehow above any party.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...and you just described the end of berzirk's post.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So I read the CBS article, and you're absolutely right. It says there was a request for 11 bodyguards. I don't know what the process is for sending them over or increasing security, nor do I know what the normal timeframe to act on those things is. If this instance was a break from what the US has traditionally done, then shame on the administration and leaders who drug their feet.

The article is the most I've read on the topic, because I still view it as a complete political non-issue. Also in the article, I don't see anything that establishes Obama knew from the onset, and prior to his speech, that a video wasn't the cause or primary factor. Again...it's a non-issue, so I don't really care. Even if he was outright lying...I don't really care. I care that he continues to use drones all over the region to kill suspected militants and any civilian that is surrounding them. I care that he thinks it's OK to assasinate US citizens. I care that he has expanded spying on US citizens. I care that he beats his chest for the death of Osama like he was somehow the reason it got done, and nobody else could have made the call. Those are the biggest reasons why I don't think all that highly of Obama.

Regarding fence sitting, that's a lousy position. To be openly Independent and having opinions on issues is not fence sitting, and that does make me better than Democrats and Republicans. I acknowledge the snobbery, and finally get the atheist smugness that used to have me baffled. It's annoying, but like an atheist, I truly think I'm right, and supporters of various groups I disassociate myself with, are short-sighted idiots. To me, anyone who agrees with most positions of either political party is too stubborn to form their own opinions on issues, and instead need someone else to tell you what to think.

So I definitely wave my dick over my Independence. If I had a Republican or a Democrat's dick, other than the usual waving at a misstress or young male aid, I would be scared to wave it around too.[/QUOTE]
If you think your opinions are formed in some kind of vacuum, you couldn't be more wrong.

As for the Obama taking credit for killing bin Laden thing, those on top always get the credit. That's true in any organization with a hierarchy. You think when a company increases it's profits that the dude down in the call center working overtime gets the credit? Congrats to the solider(s) who killed bin LAden, but they didn't make the call, their Commander in Chief did. He would have been blamed for not getting bin Laden if he'd told them to pull back as well, so what you're basically saying is that no matter what he did, somebody was going to be chewing his ass out for it. Sounds like a great situation to be in.
 
If we failed to get Bin Laden in that mission and the Seal Members died, I have my doubts if we'd hear about it or not from the White House.
 
and103112blog1.jpg



This is all that needs to be said. Everyone hates the government until their shit gets caved in.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If we failed to get Bin Laden in that mission and the Seal Members died, I have my doubts if we'd hear about it or not from the White House.[/QUOTE]

No you'd hear about it. Think of all the failed missions you have heard of : Waco , Bay of Pigs ,Tehran hostages. Theres contemporary examples too like Operation RedWings
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']
and103112blog1.jpg



This is all that needs to be said. Everyone hates the government until their shit gets caved in.[/QUOTE]
I love political cartoonists, they can say with one panel what many can't say with pages.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']No you'd hear about it. Think of all the failed missions you have heard of : Waco , Bay of Pigs ,Tehran hostages. Theres contemporary examples too like Operation RedWings[/QUOTE]

Fair point, but it's just a feeling I haven't been able to shake since Biden came out soon afterwards and said 'if we failed, Obama wouldn't get a second term' or something to that effect. I think the situation would've boiled down to who talks about it first, and in that instance, I can't say for certain that the White House would be the ones to do so.
 
If you believe I "exude an air of self importance", then you must be getting my posts mixed up with the ones where folks are always condescending with those they disagree with, telling them how stupid they are, telling them to do various sexual acts as if they're the master and we're the mutts in some kind of cyber-BDSM relationship, and telling them how great the Democratic party is and how we're all pathetic morons for voting against them and voting against ourselves.
 
Your smugness comes from the impression that you strut around this place acting like we're all just a bunch of partisan dumbasses, that only the mighty independent bob knows the truth. If you want to act superior because you're spouting facts and someone else has their head up their ass, by all means, act away. You seem to think you're better simply because you (like to think) you don't belong to any ideology, or aren't effected by any parties. You're insufferable because you seem to take pleasure in being a thorn in everyone's ass.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']hack. liar. you're full of it; you love that Stevens is dead, so you can harp on that fact to bray about something you already wanted to happen - Obama is elected out of office. Obama's foreign policy was untouchable from the typical, droll right-wing angle of "lol Democrats are pussies and bow to the French." Now you get to dance around mere allegations that Obama wanted Stevens dead, and was personally responsible for making it happen.

It's yout Vince Foster moment for Obama's Clinton. Preposterous suggestions, blown substantially out of proportion by biased, vested plutocrat interests - so y'all can elect your tax-cutting, deficit-exploding new gilded age overlord, Romney.[/QUOTE]
Back to attacking the messenger. I accept your concession of defeat.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Back to attacking the messenger. I accept your concession of defeat.[/QUOTE]

Go back to that CBS article you linked (ostensibly to show that it's not just a right-wing talking point): what, in that article, supports your view that, during the attack, Obama denied requests for assistance?
 
Calling a hack a hack isn't admitting defeat. It's recognizing someone is full of shit and calling them on it. If i were arguing with Beck and said he was full of shit, that is in no way an admission of defeat, it is me accusing him of being full of shit. You've been accused daf, either defend yourself or walk away.
 
[quote name='nasum']Yeah, rub that thorn baby, then stick it in your ear and wear a diaper on the internet[/QUOTE]
Oh and nas, just how much did you have to drink ?:rofl:
 
Let's revisit this issue:

[quote name='dafoomie']Who was the Governor of Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal there?[/QUOTE]

This guy:

“The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother,’’ Romney said in his prepared remarks. “What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B,’ but a mother and a father.’’

Romney also warned about the societal impact of gay parents raising children. “Scientific studies of children raised by same-sex couples are almost nonexistent,’’ he said. “It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole.’’

Romney expressed similar beliefs during a speech in 2005 to socially conservative voters in South Carolina, as he was beginning to be viewed as a serious candidate for president.

“Some gays are actually having children born to them,’’ he declared. “It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’
Click to expand...

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politic...gay-parents/TqOHBb99V98H6nGQqUQrjO/story.html

Real champion of civil rights, that Mitt Romney. :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/mitt-romney-versus-the-automakers.html?hp&_r=0

"Mr. Romney apparently plans to end his race as he began it: playing lowest-common-denominator politics, saying anything necessary to achieve power and blithely deceiving voters desperate for clarity and truth."[/QUOTE]


Theres a few links in that article : Like this one- the well-documented reality

That sounds like a wonderfully sensible approach — except that it’s utter fantasy. In late 2008 and early 2009, when G.M. and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.
Click to expand...

I wonder if anyone ever really stopped to consider what Mitt was actually proposing here beyond the fantasy aspect (That the private money was actually there to lend)

How do you even come at a private investor and entice them to risk their capital through a managed bankruptcy? The answer is that a private investor knows that whether or not a GM makes it , he'll make money. AKA The Bain Capital way. Thats the dog whistle in his argument to the private sector. Private investment wouldn't have been interested in saving the auto industry , but simply turning a buck. Thats the truth of the managed bankruptcy argument. It isnt necessarily a "better" method but rather a "different" method. Seriously does the most ardent Romney supporter believe the phrase Moral Hazard has ever passed his lips?
 
Possibility this was posted in this thread but in case not, I thought political affiliation quiz was pretty good (I wasn't surprised by my alignment with Jill Stein). If you want more granularity in your choices, click on the "Choose another stance" option. Covered a lot of stances and you can enter your own too.

http://www.isidewith.com/
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Possibility this was posted in this thread but in case not, I thought political affiliation quiz was pretty good (I wasn't surprised by my alignment with Jill Stein). If you want more granularity in your choices, click on the "Choose another stance" option. Covered a lot of stances and you can enter your own too.

http://www.isidewith.com/[/QUOTE]

Haha, I'm a political scizophrenic. 1) Gary Johnson, followed by Jill Stein. Probably due to my extreme positions on foreign policy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='joeboosauce']Possibility this was posted in this thread but in case not, I thought political affiliation quiz was pretty good (I wasn't surprised by my alignment with Jill Stein). If you want more granularity in your choices, click on the "Choose another stance" option. Covered a lot of stances and you can enter your own too.

http://www.isidewith.com/[/QUOTE]


I've done this and always confirmed that I am Democrat.

I side 95% with Dems and 7% with GOP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top