Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The jeep ad was crazy, too. Jeep owners (I am one) are one of the largest and most devout cults in the country - bigger than Mormans by a good bit. Insult our cars, we will hunt you down to the ends of the earth and eat your organs before your eyes.

My brother (who lives in Ohio, near Columbus -- basically ground zero for the election) was even more pissed off that Romney went after "the Italians."

For a guy with Romney's business pedigree to lose my brother's vote took some doing. He's the CEO of a local company, and when he worked more as an engineer he designed things for the military (like tank armor) and the oil industry (drilling equipment and such, I believe). But he hates stupid and views lying about the auto bailout as pretty goddamn stupid.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Hey! Something I can respond to without losing my mind.

TM

I did give you Katy Perry in a latex dress, campaigning for the president's re-election. Here's another (though I prefer the "Forward!" version):

[Gattigap]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The difference between what Obama and what Romney wanted to do is that GM still exists. Romney wanted private funding and no government involvement, which would have killed it.

Romney wrote that editorial either because it was an uncontrollable fit of honesty or an opportunity to pander to the anti-government Tea Party zealots. Now he's rewriting history to claim that he was advocating something pretty close to what Obama actually did, but that's bullshit.

Joe Sixpack is absolutely right on this one. That Romney has to lie about what he proposed and, more recently, about Chrysler sending jobs to China confirms that he doesn't have a truthful argument on his side.

I live in PA. And I support the GM bailout.* But it was a unique one-off. And Joe Sixpack's an idiot. I want to give him more, but exposed to him regularly, I can't.
____
* If we have to prop shmucks on Wall Street, we must do the same for the parasites in the unions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wow. That didn't suck.

I think Elizabeth Warren is going to be a great Senator.

Hope my uncle wins his race!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think Elizabeth Warren is going to be a great Senator.

She's going to create work for lawyers and accountants. That's good... for us.

Whether enshrining into law the notion people are incapable of reading loan documents, and can't avoid being fleeced by lenders without aid of a govt agency to watch their back is a good thing is another question. I'm not against the consumer agency's banning things like cross-defaults in unrelated consumer loans. But I am nervous about society being told, "Don't bother learning how to navigate a lending agreement. The govt will make it all nice and safe for you. It'll make sure you can stay as uneducated on the subject as you like. Nanny has your back."

(And, of course, the implicit message - that people cannot live without consumer credit, and therefore we need an agency to make sure they get it on terms most advantageous to them - is disturbing.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It could happen.

It did happen. Obama will win FL. This is where, were I Hank, "653 to 1" would appear.

[Adder]

Expect a chaste wedding night, though.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's going to create work for lawyers and accountants. That's good... for us.

Whether enshrining into law the notion people are incapable of reading loan documents, and can't avoid being fleeced by lenders without aid of a govt agency to watch their back is a good thing is another question. I'm not against the consumer agency's banning things like cross-defaults in unrelated consumer loans. But I am nervous about society being told, "Don't bother learning how to navigate a lending agreement. The govt will make it all nice and safe for you. It'll make sure you can stay as uneducated on the subject as you like. Nanny has your back."

(And, of course, the implicit message - that people cannot live without consumer credit, and therefore we need an agency to make sure they get it on terms most advantageous to them - is disturbing.)

We've been through this before. The issue isn't just protecting people who are incapable of protecting themselves, or unwilling to do so. On that, I tend to agree with the "fuck 'em" mentality. The problem is that that, as those people default and the defaults mount, they end up fucking all of us.

"Too big to fail" means "too big not to regulate."

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's going to create work for lawyers and accountants. That's good... for us.

But I am nervous about society being told, "Don't bother learning how to navigate a lending agreement. The govt will make it all nice and safe for you. It'll make sure you can stay as uneducated on the subject as you like. Nanny has your back."

Why bother? If the bank is free to change terms and your choices are (1) pay the whole loan back or (2) arbitrate, what difference does it make what the original loan says?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

Expect a chaste wedding night, though.

Umm. Offer NOT accepted. But happy to see that more people realize it's OK for people to do their thing.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Umm. Offer NOT accepted. But happy to see that more people realize it's OK for people to do their thing.

You mean, the fact that voters in several states expressed support for gay marriage doesn't cause you to suddenly crave cock?

Huh. Maybe the "defend marriage" crowd was wrong about that.

[Hank Chinaski]

the craziest, or most disappointing, thing last night was this guy representing the right/TP saying the problem was the Rs ran "an East Coast liberal." Like we need to run one of these rape/abortion guys, rather than realizing that their insanity has cratered the Rs again.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the craziest, or most disappointing, thing last night was this guy representing the right/TP saying the problem was the Rs ran "an East Coast liberal." Like we need to run one of these rape/abortion guys, rather than realizing that their insanity has cratered the Rs again.

Yeah. And the reason the Dems lost in 2000 is because we didn't run Kucinich.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the craziest, or most disappointing, thing last night was this guy representing the right/TP saying the problem was the Rs ran "an East Coast liberal." Like we need to run one of these rape/abortion guys, rather than realizing that their insanity has cratered the Rs again.

It will be an interesting ongoing battle for the soul of the GOP, where a significant contingent will blame Romney for not being a "real" conservative.

Meanwhile, Indiana, of all places, elected a Dem Senator because the Rs Tea Partied their moderate GOP senator.

Right now, it looks like the Tea Party should be dead. If it isn't, it may well keep dragging the GOP down.