The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='speedracer']PS Noticed your Child's Play offering. Well done.[/QUOTE]

What can I say, I love Child's Play.

Need to throw up my bonus round prize pretty soon. :D
 
It's funny how all of this plays out when you view it from the outside.

Before, Republicans said you didn't have to pay for tax cuts and Democrats said not extending a tax cut isn't a tax increase.

Now, Republicans are "worried" about paying for tax cuts and Democrats are saying that ending a tax cut a tax increase.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's funny how all of this plays out when you view it from the outside.

Before, Republicans said you didn't have to pay for tax cuts and Democrats said not extending a tax cut isn't a tax increase.

Now, Republicans are "worried" about paying for tax cuts and Democrats are saying that ending a tax cut a tax increase.[/QUOTE]

Republicans don't want to cut taxes for the poor but they have to for votes. Therefore they will deal but they want their pound of flesh.

But this last time around - whoops. You couldn't expose the hypocrisy of Republicans any better if you bought a billboard at times square.
 
[quote name='speedracer'] 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.[/QUOTE]

It's less about giving a tax break to the middle class (though that's the line that makes the papers). Because you're right, you could accomplish the same thing through a decrease in the marginal tax rates. What wouldnt happen, though, is that the "working poor" would see any type of relief. Remember, ~46% of Americans pay no federal income tax whereas ~80% have some tax liability when you factor in SSI/Medicare/etc.. So if the thought is to get money in the hands of those most likely to spend it, the payroll tax appears to be a better option than marginal tax rates.

Not saying I necessarily agree with either case, but I can understand the thought process.
 
[quote name='Clak']Boehner disgusts me. That man has no respect for anyone or anything.[/QUOTE]

Bite your tongue. He has the utmost respect for caddies, tanning booth employees, and mixologists.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']It's less about giving a tax break to the middle class (though that's the line that makes the papers). Because you're right, you could accomplish the same thing through a decrease in the marginal tax rates. What wouldnt happen, though, is that the "working poor" would see any type of relief. Remember, ~46% of Americans pay no federal income tax whereas ~80% have some tax liability when you factor in SSI/Medicare/etc.. So if the thought is to get money in the hands of those most likely to spend it, the payroll tax appears to be a better option than marginal tax rates.

Not saying I necessarily agree with either case, but I can understand the thought process.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It will come down to Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul, with Paul losing and then people questioning whether he should run as a third party candidate.[/QUOTE]
Dude's pretty old. Kind of this year or never for him. If he was going to go 3rd party, this should be the year.
 
[quote name='nasum']How in the hell is Rick Santorum coming up all of the sudden?[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...wut? At this rate, Bachmann will be the frontrunner next week!:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...wut? At this rate, Bachmann will be the frontrunner next week!:lol:[/QUOTE]

She already was, back in August. Rick Perry came in and took her thunder.

Can't wait for the headlines:

Santorum surges out from rear/behind; former Senator finishes third in Iowa caucuses.
 
Just saw one of Rick Perry's campaign commercials in which he criticizes congressional salaries. Now while I have always thought that congress makes too much, the President makes even more than an average congress person. He doesn't seem to mention anything about being willing to forego his salary as President. Slight case of hypocrisy there.

Now, the funny part of the commercial, he advocates that congress should be "part time" so that they will have to go home and get a real job... Yep, I was thinking the same thing, what. the. fuck. Congress, which already can't get shit done correctly should have the amount of time they have to get shit done cut in half? Guess that's one approach to decreasing the size of government.

Let's say we did cut the Legislature's time and pay in half, let's figure out approximately how much we'd save. We'll use the bottom number of $174,000 and cut it in half to $87,000 thus saving $87,000 per congressperson. We'll take the 435 (and hell we'll add in the 6 non-voting members to make it 441), now let's add in the Senate to get to 541. That's 535 salaries of $87,000 we'd save to give us a grand total in savings of $47,067,000. Damn, Rick, you've done solved all of our federal deficit ($1.3 trillion for 2011) plans with this well-thought, comprehensive plan. I mean that near $50 million dollars will account for an astounding 3.8% of our federal deficit. Coincidentally, we can always hope that only 3.8% of the population will fall for your "plan."

Finally, this is coming from the candidate who is apparently drawing pension while still serving as governor and receiving his salary as governor.
 
Nah, you do a job you should get paid, plain and simple. Now, they don't need to be paid through the nose like they are but as I pointed out, that's hardly the biggest problem in our national budget. Even moreso the President doesn't need to be paid almost half a million dollars (even if it is perhaps the most difficult job in America) but once again that ain't the problem in our budget.

Do we really need to be spending almost $700 billion on our military? Probably not, considering we're essentially just using it to police the world to our ideals anyway which hasn't gotten us anywhere anyway... That's a discussion for another day though but its a basic misdirection by the Republicans and the type of needless political bickering that doesn't solve anything.
 
Can reporters maybe come up with different phrases to describe Santorum's rise in the polls?

'Santorum surges from behind' just sounds horrible.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Can reporters maybe come up with different phrases to describe Santorum's rise in the polls?

'Santorum surges from behind' just sounds horrible.[/QUOTE]
How about,

"Santorum Supporters Froth at the Mouth as Santourm and Candidates Approach Climax of Caucus!"?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Nah, you do a job you should get paid, plain and simple. Now, they don't need to be paid through the nose like they are but as I pointed out, that's hardly the biggest problem in our national budget. Even moreso the President doesn't need to be paid almost half a million dollars (even if it is perhaps the most difficult job in America) but once again that ain't the problem in our budget.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed that they deserve to be paid paid. I don't think the salaries are that obscene personally. Especially for president....I wouldn't do that job for $400K a year.

I think people mostly have problems with it since most national politicians are already wealthy these days--at least presidents and senators, maybe a little less true in the house with reps from rural states etc.

But otherwise, these are jobs we want ideally highly experienced and talented people representing us. And DC is a ridiculously overpriced city to live in/near. So I don't think the salaries are really too much personally.

As you note, there are lots of other areas of egregious wasteful spending like defense etc. Congressional salaries are a drop in the bucket.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']lmao


Kelly Clarkson Loses Some Fans Over Her Endorsement of Ron Paul

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...oses-some-fans-over-her-endorsement-ron-paul/[/QUOTE]

Without even looking this up, I'm going to guarantee that she has gained thousands of new Facebook likes, Twitter followers, and her songs are moving up charts on iTunes and other places.

Why?

Because Fox News reported that she was losing fans.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Without even looking this up, I'm going to guarantee that she has gained thousands of new Facebook likes, Twitter followers, and her songs are moving up charts on iTunes and other places.

Why?

Because Fox News reported that she was losing fans.[/QUOTE]

Dunno about that. Pretty sure Fox News hates Ron Paul with a passion.
 
[quote name='camoor']Dunno about that. Pretty sure Fox News hates Ron Paul with a passion.[/QUOTE]

Looked it up. Sales are up on Amazon, Facebook likes and Twitter followers also up. Haven't checked iTunes, but that's probably up too.

I've watched Fox for a few days in the last couple weeks. I honestly think there were maybe 2 or 3 total shows out of the days I watched that didn't have anti-Ron Paul material in them. Little wonder that Paul gets close to 40% of the non-Fox vote, but only around 12% of the Fox vote.
 
I think they're (GOP/Fox) more interested in minimizing the votes he steals from Mitt Romney in the general election in 2012. They don't see him as the Republican candidate, but they want to ensure he doesn't get so many votes that it's obvious Obama wins re-election.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Care to explain? Hasn't he done so for the past 3 election cycles?[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. He dropped out during the primaries. He was still on the ballot in a few states, and received write in votes etc.

But he wasn't still actively campaigning and officially on ballots everywhere like Ross Perot.

I think he knows he has know chance of winning as a third party candidate, and he'd thus only steal votes from the Republican candidate. And he'd rather the lesser of two evils in his eyes win.
 
He's only run 3 times. 88' on the Libertarian ticket, dropped out after the primaries in '08, and now. I think for the sake of his son, he will not want the Paul name to become synonymous with Nader.
 
I can't remember when Bachmann was the frontrunner. I always thought she was more of a freakshow candidate and was treated as such. I can understand the hype surrounding Perry and Huntsman prior to official announcements, but they're really reaching if they're looking at Santorum now.
 
Really? I thought that the media was protraying that win as meaningless...must've been because I wasn't following conservative media outlets...
 
i haven't been following the candidates but just by glances at headlines for the past year it seems Iowa is the most important state in this country.
 
There should be substantially greater (i.e., *some*) rotation in the primary cycle order of states. This circus of the order in which states go is absurd. Iowa should not always and forever have first dibs. It is inherently imbalanced and unfair.
 
I'm not a big fan of the primary process in general. I'd rather them just have one set election day everywhere just like the general election.

The current system just drags the campaigns out for ages, makes it take even more money to run for national office etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think so. He dropped out during the primaries. He was still on the ballot in a few states, and received write in votes etc.

But he wasn't still actively campaigning and officially on ballots everywhere like Ross Perot.

I think he knows he has know chance of winning as a third party candidate, and he'd thus only steal votes from the Republican candidate. And he'd rather the lesser of two evils in his eyes win.[/QUOTE]

It'd be because there's no chance of a third party candidate winning. He didn't vote for Bush in 2000, and didn't endorse McCain last go-round; telling people to vote for any of McKinney, Nader, Barr, and Baldwin, and after drug warrior Barr threw a hissy fit, Paul endorsed Baldwin.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Without even looking this up, I'm going to guarantee that she has gained thousands of new Facebook likes, Twitter followers, and her songs are moving up charts on iTunes and other places.[/QUOTE]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/music

For the "movers and shakers" list, as of 3AM PST on 12/31/11 she was number 1 with an 850% increase. She also has the #5, #6 and #19 spot with older albums. She is number 2 overall in best sellers behind Adele. Interestingly enough, the combined weight of Adele and Clarkson is higher than the rest of the top ten combined. Combined, they make up six Tony Bennetts!

She has seen no appreciable increase on iTunes, however, which probably reflects the politics of the average iTunes/Apple user.
 
[quote name='Spokker']http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/music

For the "movers and shakers" list, as of 3AM PST on 12/31/11 she was number 1 with an 850% increase. She also has the #5, #6 and #19 spot with older albums. She is number 2 overall in best sellers behind Adele. Interestingly enough, the combined weight of Adele and Clarkson is higher than the rest of the top ten combined. Combined, they make up six Tony Bennetts!

She has seen no appreciable increase on iTunes, however, which probably reflects the politics of the average iTunes/Apple user.[/QUOTE]

Jerk.
 
[quote name='BigT']This almost makes me want to listen to a Kelly Clarkson album :D

Anyone who has enough sense to support Ron Paul (rather than the other stooges) is alright in my book![/QUOTE]
Anyone that supports Ron Paul is a dumb piece of shit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Anyone that supports Ron Paul is a dumb piece of shit.[/QUOTE]

I'm still convinced that all of Ron Paul's support is the greatest IRL trolling the collective internet has ever pulled off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top