The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

I feel like dohdough has taken much of my longwinded apoplectic seemingly rage-filled rants from me. I've been posting less and using fewer words anymore.

Which is fine with me. Just bought Skyrim. ;)
 
Am I the only one who is wondering what the big deal with Skyrim is. The story doesn't seem that epic to me. Plus it's kinda silly how easily you can break the game (if youtube is to be believed)
 
I should be getting Skyrim for Xmas. I love those kind of games. They eat up a lot of time, but I don't mind playing them over a few months and just popping 5 or 6 hours into them a few nights a month when I need a break etc.
 
troy is right. when I first played morrowind, I was like "uh, where am I supposed to go now?" when I realized that the idea was that i could go anywhere and do anything in (virtually) any order, the breadth of the game became evident to me - and its appeal as well.

I'm also playing FFIV on PSP right now from time to time. I just beat Barbariccia (Barbacoa? Whatever, she's Valvalis because I played this shit on SNES too many times), and there's probably only one place I'm going next - that is, my next destination in the linear plot, or off to grind levels in a forest somewhere. The nonrestrictiveness of the "western RPG" (though I disagree with that categorization) is indeed its appeal.

Stay classy, Republicans.
 
Yeah...I'm usually not a sandbox-world type of gamer, but I heard that there's a lot of customization you can do with your character and most importantly, it won't muderize me like D Souls.
 
Fox News debate tonight at 9pm EST. I'm probably going to miss it because I'm going out for dinner. I wonder who and how Chris Wallace is going to try and bury as a candidate tonight.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Fox News debate tonight at 9pm EST. I'm probably going to miss it because I'm going out for dinner. I wonder who and how Chris Wallace is going to try and bury as a candidate tonight.[/QUOTE]

Santorum is going to try the "Ron Paul says 9/11 is an inside job" ploy.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Nah, lots of pundits are breaking out the 'Ron Paul is a racist' ploy, it might get at least one mention during the debate.[/QUOTE]

Marx Levin, El Neoconbo and Shame Hannity are hilarious, they say worse things nearly every day on their radio programs. I assert that they doth protest a wee bit much.
 
Who would hit that? I mean i understand doing anything to get ahead in business and politics, but Damn! Have some pride man.
 
Politicians aren't exactly the most ethical of people...

I'm sure that if every illicit or inappropriate relationship that takes place there were exposed, we'd have very few senators left...

...actually, that sounds like a good thing!
 
[quote name='nasum']MN Senate majority leader is resigning because she shagged a staffer.
The family values party continues to win votes with their pious devotion and faith.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/...appropriate-relationship-with-senate-staffer/[/QUOTE]

LMAO Minnesota.

That would barely qualify as news in DC. Then again, it is hard to compete with our level of scandal...

1247071276_m_cover_28.jpg
 
Sometimes I wonder if I've seen the high water mark in the stupidity olympics that is the GOP caucus. Then something like this happens and you realize you're going to need a bigger bucket to bail out all the bullshit.

Democrats try to pass tax cut. Republicans fight against it because in the entire multiverse of taxes, they hate only this tax cut for some reason. Republicans demand a pipeline approval be attached to tax cut. Dems agree. Republicans still vote no.

Sure, it's just garden variety idiocy at this point. Then it goes full Republican.
However House Republicans are aware of the political peril that will come with killing a bipartisan plan to extend the payroll tax cut, and they know they’ll likely be held responsible if the tax holiday expires. So they’re structuring the votes in a manner that’s designed to give their members cover from that charge and, perhaps, preserves their right to reconsider the Senate bill in the coming days.

Specifically, they’re not actually going to vote down the Senate bill directly. Instead they will vote on a single measure that rejects the Senate’s plan and simultaneously calls for a conference with Senate negotiators to iron out the (significant) differences between the two chambers’ plans.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Weird process wrangling. This particular process is known as a variation of the "deem and pass". And we all know Repubs hate the deem and pass (it was used to get Obamacare through). Red State sums the frothing hate up well:
Such schemes are unconstitutional, and allow the House to speak with a forked tongue. The President cannot constitutionally approve only part of the legislation that the House votes for; he must approve all or nothing.
Click to expand...
Note the underlined bolded. It's awful and we hate it. Blah blah.

Here's where insanity wolf goes double barreled: The Republicans are using deem and pass AGAINST THEIR OWN MEMBERS to pass a bill against their will.

lolwut
 
I tried to follow the wrangling over this BS the other day and ended up getting a headache so I stopped. WTF ever happened to Boehner's 1 bill 1 issue promise to america or whatever?
 
I heard something about that on NPR earlier, but didn't hear the whole thing. I heard enough to get the gist that republicans were basically fighting amongst themselves.
 
Anyone happen to catch ed Gillespie on Daily Show recently? It's amazing how some people can slip out of the corner they've been put in.
 
I loved Chris Christie on Morning Joe saying Democrats haven't given up anything in exchange for the payrolll tax cut.

They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden, and they're not gonna give it up for nothing.
 
This week, Republicans are against tax cuts.

Folks on the right and trolls alike, read that sentence until it sinks in.

Then come back and talk to us about how this is consistent ideology.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This week, Republicans are against tax cuts.

Folks on the right and trolls alike, read that sentence until it sinks in.

Then come back and talk to us about how this is consistent ideology.[/QUOTE]
It's like they're bi-polar or have split personalities. Actually no, I shouldn't say that. They're for anything so long as it's something they can control. Once they lose control they decide they don't like it after all and throw up another brick wall.
 
“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

So if we keep the payroll tax cut, Social Security should remain solvent for even LONGER than it currently is expected to be. Brilliant!

;)
 
As I understand it, they rejected a 2 month extension, also known as sweeping it under the rug. Also, from what I have heard and read, the biggest provision/sticking point is that the GOP want to pay for the extension now, via cuts somewhere else.
 
[quote name='utgotye']As I understand it, they rejected a 2 month extension, also known as sweeping it under the rug. Also, from what I have heard and read, the biggest provision/sticking point is that the GOP want to pay for the extension now, via cuts somewhere else.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't there also a cut to social security and more of a priority on the pipeline? I don't think they really give a shit about paying for the extentions, which they've argued would be "raising taxes" in the past, but they also don't have a problem cutting 2,000,000 people off unemployment in the roughest job market in over 30 years.
 
Now Boehner has flipped and is against the bill presumably to extract more concessions from Dems (a Republican extracting concessions to pass a tax cut, hold on while my face asplodes).
If Republicans didn't want to extend the payroll tax cut on the merits, then they should have put together a strategy and the arguments for defeating it and explained why.

But if they knew they would eventually pass it, as most of them surely believed, then they had one of two choices. Either pass it quickly and at least take some political credit for it.

Or agree on a strategy to get something in return for passing it, which would mean focusing on a couple of popular policies that would put Mr. Obama and Democrats on the political spot. They finally did that last week by attaching a provision that requires Mr. Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, and the President grumbled but has agreed to sign it.

But now Republicans are drowning out that victory in the sounds of their circular firing squad. Already four GOP Senators have rejected the House position, and the political rout will only get worse.
Click to expand...
Geez. Only the liberal media could make them look that bad. Except that's the WSJ.

lolwut
[quote name='UncleBob']But I thought the Republicans acted 100% in unison with one another on all issues all the time or something...[/QUOTE]
Even the WSJ is calling them out on their bullshit. They're flailing around trying to find the best way to fuck over Obama.

Republican politicians can't even do partisan right anymore.
 
They could have done the right thing and simply passed it as I'm sure they eventually would have, or, like they have decided, they could use it to try and squeeze yet more blood from the stone. I swear, I don't understand why it's legal to attach things to bills when they have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself. Attaching a provision forcing the president to decide about an oil pipeline, to a bill which deals with payroll tax cuts is just ridiculous.
 
In the end, it really doesn't matter since both parties will eventually get around to fucking all of us over anyway.
 
[quote name='utgotye']In the end, it really doesn't matter since both parties will eventually get around to fucking all of us over anyway.[/QUOTE]
It matters to me. The payroll tax cut passed in 2010 was worth > $2k to my family. A very sizable percentage of that went towards Child's Play and the EFF this year.
 
like I said, what happened to the GOP "One Bill One Issue" promise from a couple months back? They simply don't care.

This pipeline thing is kind of ridiculous too but nobody looks any further than "jobs" to figure out what might happen.
1.) Why are the canucks so interested in getting the crude out of their system for refinement?
2.) Tar sand extraction and then refinement is only profitable when oil is above roughly $80 per barrel. What makes anyone think that OPEC won't just increase production to keep their commodity the easiest and most profitable in the world, thus torpedoing the whole deal in Canada?
3.) Tar sand crude is full of other chemicals that need to be removed during the refinement process and there's really nowhere to put those chemicals. See #1.
4.) This pipeline is infrastructure, going through a lot of public land but will also require some domain takeover. Who will own the pipeline? The US Govt? If so, that's big govt which is bad right? The Canadian Oil Extractors? Landowners in the US? Some private company in the US? All of those have some severe drawbacks if the shit hits the fan and there's a leak.
 
[quote name='Clak']And you know there will be a leak at some point.[/QUOTE]

yeah, that's some pretty abrasive stuff to travel a good 1,300 miles without a hiccup.
 
[quote name='utgotye']In the end, it really doesn't matter since both parties will eventually get around to fucking all of us over anyway.[/QUOTE]

Do both parties try and fuck us? At times yes. Difference is id rather chose the party that lubes up and eases it in then the one that forces it in dry and smacks my ass with its belt while they have their way with me. It really gets old listening to people who dont follow politics trying to act like both parties are the same. Dems may regularly fuck us too which is really sad, but at least they do not do it every time, at least its not a lifelong guarantee with them and at least when they do they dont leave me unable to sit for weeks.
 
Shit son, did somebody just flash the ol' Crotch Signal in the sky?[quote name='nasum']1.) Why are the canucks so interested in getting the crude out of their system for refinement?[/quote]
Why are you phrasing this as though it's some sort of elaborate conspiracy, like tar sands oil is a cursed monkey's paw or something? We have infrastructure limitations. We like selling things to you guys. Combine the two, and what do you get?
[quote name='nasum']2.) Tar sand extraction and then refinement is only profitable when oil is above roughly $80 per barrel. What makes anyone think that OPEC won't just increase production to keep their commodity the easiest and most profitable in the world, thus torpedoing the whole deal in Canada?[/quote]
First, extraction and refinement techniques do advance and have advanced.

As far as the OPEC thing goes, that's just... kind of silly. If the bogeyman was going to come out from under the bed, I think he would have by now.

I got nothin' on your other two points of contention, though.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It matters to me. The payroll tax cut passed in 2010 was worth > $2k to my family. A very sizable percentage of that went towards Child's Play and the EFF this year.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. You're saying here that, when allowed to keep more of your money, you choose to give it to NFP/charitable organizations?

What makes you think you're a better decision maker than the government when it comes to deciding who should be allowed to spend your money?

[quote name='speedracer']Even the WSJ is calling them out on their bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Republicans are full of ****; film at 11.

I just find it funny that not too long ago, there were some folks here trying to claim that the Republicans were playing unfairly because they always work as a team and, somehow, it was their fault that the Democrats couldn't get their **** together to get anything useful done.

I suppose, now, it's somehow the Democrats fault that the Republicans can't work together?
 
Exactly, there's a lack of capability (and apparently a lack of desire to build to that capability) to refine what is a difficult crude to refine. If we're to follow the invisible hand, why wouldn't there be a strong desire to build that infrastructure to keep the profit there? It isn't a conspiracy as you suggest, it's just an interesting question that is wholly ignored in the discussion.

OPEC has on numerous occasions fucked with global commodity pricing based on their output. It's just about all they have in terms of GDP in some places so it is to their advantadge to keep their oil as the #1 source for the global market. Shit, look what they've done to Russian oil in the past...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Interesting. You're saying here that, when allowed to keep more of your money, you choose to give it to NFP/charitable organizations?

What makes you think you're a better decision maker than the government when it comes to deciding who should be allowed to spend your money?[/quote]
In a general sense, sure. Government spends too much blah blah.

But I'm actually against it. I've pretty aggressively argued against the payroll tax cut in the past. If you want to target a tax cut to the middle class, do it somewhere else. Cut the marginal on income up to $60k for a family. Otherwise you're doing exactly what you shouldn't be: giving rich assholes like me a fat tax cut on the back of Social Security.

SS > Child's Play.

I understand why the Dems are doing it but they're wrong to do it. It's certainly not the most egregious political mistake we'll ever see.

PS Noticed your Child's Play offering. Well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top