June 29, 2012
— CAC Obama's handling on health care, per Newsweek:
37% approve, 58% disapprove (44% strongly disapprove).
Approve/Disapprove of Supreme Court Ruling?
Approve 45%
Disapprove 50%
Who should run Congress?
Republicans 38%
Democrats 36%
President?
Obama 47%
Romney 44%
Do you think Barack Obama has done his job well enough to deserve re-election, or is it time to replace him with somebody else?
He has 42%
Time to replace 48%
Does the Supreme Court's decision make you more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney for President, or does it not impact your opinion?
More likely 32%
Less likely 11%
Not Sure 7%
No Impact 50%
Does the Supreme Court's decision make you more or less likely to vote for Barack Obama for re-election, or does it not impact your opinion?
More likely 14%
Less Likely 29%
Not Sure 5%
No Impact 51%
Generally speaking, do you think the Supreme Court's decision will make our country better off, worse off, or will it not be impacted?
Better off 24%
Worse off 47%
No impact 14%
Not Sure 14%
This poll was conducted immediately after the announcement. Breaks down D+2, ideology 24% liberal 46% moderate 30% conservative.
Not exactly what a lot of political experts would have enjoyed, I think. The nation still disapproves of Obamacare, and calling it, more appropriately, ObamaTax would be effective. The court decision seems to have influenced voter opinions in favor of Romney, though I still suspect the President will enjoy an approval bounce out of this. How long that lasts will depend on Friday's jobs report.
Posted by: CAC at
02:54 PM
| Comments (175)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
"President?
Obama 47%
Romney 44%
or is it time to replace him with somebody else?
He has 42%
Time to replace 48%
DaFuq?"
Simple, no one wants to vote for Romneycare when it comes to this issue. Mitt Romneycare was the last person the GOP should have nominated, but I remember how everyone was saying Obamacare would be overturned and the election would be all about the economy.....BULLSHIT.
Posted by: doug at June 29, 2012 03:00 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: D. Hopper at June 29, 2012 03:02 PM (AVfT8)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:02 PM (mO2XR)
But first you will blow me.
Posted by: Emperor Barak at June 29, 2012 03:02 PM (fRlaj)
Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2012 03:03 PM (+2AB7)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:03 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Big T Party at June 29, 2012 03:04 PM (EhUTA)
Easy to reconcile the numbers. 5% think Obama does not deserve reelection, but will nevertheless vote for him over Romney, because Romney is "even worse".
Posted by: wooga at June 29, 2012 03:04 PM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at June 29, 2012 03:04 PM (ZhEoC)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:04 PM (mO2XR)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 07:03 PM (YdQQY)
See, you've discovered the method to my madness of posting a Newsweek poll.
If the $1 media company can't kiss the President's butt post-decision...
Posted by: CAC at June 29, 2012 03:04 PM (NI/v1)
Posted by: scottst at June 29, 2012 03:05 PM (VzjHz)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:06 PM (mO2XR)
Ok I get that, but then why the 14% More likely after scotus decision... Are there really 3% of the population that likes the law if scotus likes it? Or were 3% of the aforementioned "partisan maximizers" simply slow to grasp which answer would most make Obama look good?
Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at June 29, 2012 03:06 PM (RfvTE)
Posted by: JDTAY at June 29, 2012 03:06 PM (a0nis)
Posted by: Doctor Fish at June 29, 2012 06:56 PM (hvwLi)
=============
More like, if you like DMV, you're gonna love health care.
I have actually been to post offices that don't make me pull my hair out.....not so with ANY DMV.
Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 03:06 PM (X6akg)
He has 42%
Time to replace 48%
Did Newsweak mention that 48% of the people polled are racists?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2012 03:07 PM (hAvUy)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:07 PM (YdQQY)
Well, that ideological breakdown is nowhere near the results of Gallup's polling over the past two-plus decades, which has consistently showed a consistent 2-to-1 gap (approx.) between conservatives and liberals:
http://tinyurl.com/c2hpbf8
Thus, even those these results are good for Republicans/conservatives, these polling results are probably under-reporting the positive news for Republicans/conservatives.
Posted by: Slappy at June 29, 2012 03:07 PM (LTbLf)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 29, 2012 03:07 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 29, 2012 03:08 PM (/i3Yt)
Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2012 03:08 PM (+2AB7)
Posted by: Valiant at June 29, 2012 03:08 PM (aFxlY)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:08 PM (YdQQY)
The airwaves need to be flooded with commercials bringing the message that ObamaCare is really ObamaTAX.
Don't let the squishy squishes come away from this thinking that they are getting "affordable" healthcare for free.
This is a huge new TAX which has the side effect of taking away the healthcare you currently have and/or like.
Posted by: Boots at June 29, 2012 03:09 PM (neKzn)
Posted by: They call me Barky at June 29, 2012 03:09 PM (TAT66)
CAC - touche on the method to madness post.
I'm just a little crispy today.
This does make sense and does give me pause in a good way as not even Tina Brown's merged Beast is bothering to loudly shill the polls for Obama.
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 03:10 PM (WzLTm)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:10 PM (mO2XR)
Romney enacted Romneycare because the people of the state wanted it, what he didn't do was impose it on the nation against their will. See, that's an argument Mitt Romneycare could make right there. And everyone was saying it would be overturned during the nomination process? Everyone? I disagree, or to quote you : BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2012 03:10 PM (I/Xad)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 03:10 PM (b2myz)
More like a Soc. Security office.
The DMV's in Montana are awesome. Three or four happy old ladies with nothing to do but help. Usually they have homemade cookies at the one in my county...
Coming from NY it was almost too much of a shock to take.
Posted by: garrett at June 29, 2012 03:11 PM (8eGWb)
Vic --- don't josh around.
Do you really believe we are gonna take the Senate.
I value both your and CAC's opinion and if your answer remains yes... I'm ordering large beer and sushi tonight.
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 03:11 PM (WzLTm)
If you like the Post Office, you're gonna love health care.
Posted by: Doctor Fish at June 29, 2012 06:56 PM (hvwLi)
---------------------------------------------
I tell people to visit the VA waiting room on a Monday morning to give them a feel of what "free" healthcare will be like.
Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2012 03:11 PM (+2AB7)
I see MO, WI, ND, MT, NE going to the Rs, possibly FL or VA.
With the 5 I see, and Brown holding on in MA, that's 51 seats.
Outside shot at NM, really outside shot at MI, OH, PA.
Posted by: CAC at June 29, 2012 03:12 PM (NI/v1)
Posted by: Ed Gibbon at June 29, 2012 03:13 PM (4eNxd)
Posted by: scottst at June 29, 2012 03:13 PM (VzjHz)
I value both your and CAC's opinion and if your answer remains yes... I'm ordering large beer and sushi tonight.
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 07:11 PM (WzLTm)
Yes, getting to 53 would only take 6 new R's 55 would be 8.
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:14 PM (YdQQY)
Can we get to 51 in November in the upper chamber?
And if not in 2012, can we do it by 2014?
Posted by: wooga at June 29, 2012 03:14 PM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Fresh at June 29, 2012 07:13 PM (O7ksG)
Most are still RV polling. Also notice the quiet nudging of the scale to make the samples more and more Democratic or liberal.
Imagine if this poll had been 40% Conservative, 40% moderate, 20% liberal, as most agree on. 2-1 Con-Lib.
Posted by: CAC at June 29, 2012 03:14 PM (NI/v1)
The sample is necessarily skewed.
Newsweak: Approve/Disapprove of Supreme Court Ruling?
Me: *slap*
See, my demographic has been completely skipped over.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 29, 2012 03:14 PM (w41GQ)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:15 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:15 PM (mO2XR)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at June 29, 2012 03:16 PM (C8mVl)
Yeah, TSA is the more likely result of having the federal government take over the healthcare system and then unionize all the doctors as Jan Schakowsky wants to do.
Even in the belly of the beast in Illinois, there are DMV offices (called sec of state but whatever) that function somewhat efficiently.
Unlike TSA, where you have to get nekkid and let strangers touch your junk.
Posted by: Boots at June 29, 2012 03:16 PM (neKzn)
I think the reason Mr. Hankey still polls so well is that everyone loves a good shit.
Posted by: wth at June 29, 2012 03:16 PM (wAQA5)
Posted by: They call me Barky at June 29, 2012 03:17 PM (TAT66)
Posted by: scottst at June 29, 2012 03:17 PM (VzjHz)
Posted by: scottst at June 29, 2012 07:13 PM (VzjHz)
TSA people with blue gloves running your healthcare. Where do I sign up ?
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:19 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: ace at June 29, 2012 03:19 PM (aw5Tx)
Posted by: JDTAY at June 29, 2012 03:19 PM (a0nis)
Vic,
Not sure we need to get to 60 votes. If we get the majority, we get the gavel and we get to set the rules and rules are esoteric and completely at the discretion of the majority leader and speaker over in the house.
Obamacare is a tax and we have legal precedent to confirm such and can invoke reconcilliation to repeal with 51 votes... correct???
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 03:19 PM (WzLTm)
There was this great quote on one of the Ricochet podcasts, "There's always a Harvard man at the center of any disaster."
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 29, 2012 03:20 PM (famk3)
Posted by: Doctor Fish at June 29, 2012 07:15 PM (hvwLi)
-----------------------------------------
To be real honest, when Ocare was upheld, I started thinking that I'd quit my job, collect my severence, get on SS and say, fuck you to the world if that POS law was implemented.
Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2012 03:21 PM (+2AB7)
So, maybe I'm missing something in going over the SCOTUS decision. It seems to me that they declared that the mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, because the government cannot compel her citizenry to participate in commerce.
Then, they said - and these were all 4 of the "liberal" justices and Roberts - that the mandate is constitutional ONLY if it is considered a tax.
So if Obama (et.al.) wants to see the mandate stand, he MUST admit that it is, indeed, a tax (which is what his legal team was arguing at some point before SCOTUS).
If he doesn't want to admit that it is a tax (which his legal team ALSO tried to argue before SCOTUS), then he will be in direct opposition to the liberal justices, AND the mandate will fall.
Because the mandate can only stand if it is a tax.
So Roberts put the Obama administration between a rock and a hard place.
Am I getting that right, or am I completely misreading things here?
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 03:21 PM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2012 03:22 PM (fEXaF)
Posted by: CAC at June 29, 2012 03:22 PM (NI/v1)
Cigna, Aetna, UHC, Wellpoint aren't giving their shit away. If you don't have it already you have to buy it in 2014.
They all signed on to Obamacare - the bastards.
Posted by: Mary Jane Rottencrotch at June 29, 2012 03:23 PM (deJfP)
Posted by: Doctor Fish at June 29, 2012 06:56 PM (hvwLi
I'm sure it will implemented with all the compassion the IRS can muster.
Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2012 03:24 PM (bAGA/)
Then, they said - and these were all 4 of the "liberal" justices and Roberts - that the mandate is constitutional ONLY if it is considered a tax.
So if Obama (et.al.) wants to see the mandate stand, he MUST admit that it is, indeed, a tax (which is what his legal team was arguing at some point before SCOTUS).
If he doesn't want to admit that it is a tax (which his legal team ALSO tried to argue before SCOTUS), then he willbe in direct opposition to the liberal justices, ANDthe mandate will fall.
Because the mandate can only stand if it is a tax.
So Roberts put the Obama administration between a rock and a hard place.
Am I getting that right, or am I completely misreading things here?
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 07:21 PM (0xqzf)
Now they are calling it a penalty. I hear what you are sayin !
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:24 PM (nTgAI)
Teresa - your review of how this went down is correct however, it is now law and Obama is under no obligation to admit it is or isn't a tax.
Consider the fact that they argued that it was a tax and equally argued it wasn't a tax in front of the Supreme Court.
This administration only cares about power and not about the details of getting there or having to logically explain anything.
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 03:24 PM (WzLTm)
Posted by: Big D at June 29, 2012 03:24 PM (VSfsH)
Posted by: Obama 2012 at June 29, 2012 03:25 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:26 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Lizabth at June 29, 2012 03:26 PM (JZBti)
If he doesn't want to admit that it is a tax (which his legal team ALSO tried to argue before SCOTUS), then he willbe in direct opposition to the liberal justices, ANDthe mandate will fall.
Because the mandate can only stand if it is a tax.
So Roberts put the Obama administration between a rock and a hard place.
Am I getting that right, or am I completely misreading things here? Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 07:21 PM
Barry lives by the dopehead's credo. Never admit anything.
Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2012 03:26 PM (bAGA/)
You're right up till the part about the mandate falling, if its labeled a "tax" by the O socialists.
The ONLY way this will go away is if Romney and the R's take over next year.
Its as simple as that.
Posted by: 4 months to go at June 29, 2012 03:27 PM (v1uZf)
But Intrade has Obama up by 20%!!!!!!!
I'm almost glad that I've been working 2 weeks straight, doing a move at work. This week turned out to SUCK.
Posted by: In before the troll at June 29, 2012 03:29 PM (TIIx5)
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 07:19 PM (WzLTm)
------------------------
Remember that according to the "Byrd Rule" you can not use reconciliation if it reduces the income and increases deficit.
if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; andif it recommends changes in Social Security.http://is.gd/lzvBbF
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:29 PM (YdQQY)
The Compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV.
Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 07:28 PM (9sUlj)
Sign up now for the blue glove plan.
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:30 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: eureka! at June 29, 2012 03:30 PM (xCpfo)
if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues
if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure
if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
if it recommends changes in Social Security.
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:31 PM (YdQQY)
So, it's gonna be one of those posts...
Posted by: garrett at June 29, 2012 07:30 PM (8eGWb
I like turtles
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:31 PM (nTgAI)
So crazy.
Devil you know vs the Devil you don't.
Most people probably haven't seen (or paid attention to) a single Romney ad yet, and have only a vague idea who he is. For Independent voters, campaign season hasn't started yet.
If most of the 9% undecideds swing Romney, Obama is in trouble.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 03:32 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:33 PM (mO2XR)
Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2012 07:24 PM (bAGA/)
Lube? What's that?
Posted by: Luigi "Cleaver" Graberoni, IRS Agent at June 29, 2012 03:33 PM (TIIx5)
Speak for yourself, I like long poles.
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at June 29, 2012 03:35 PM (2jQGY)
---------
We're not going to spike the football. Do you hear me?
Posted by: Crying Boner at June 29, 2012 03:35 PM (vOMX+)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 07:33 PM (mO2XR)
Democrats will continue to call it anything but a tax. They don't have to admit jackshit. Will the voting public go along with their semantical argument? We'll see.
Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2012 03:36 PM (fEXaF)
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at June 29, 2012 03:36 PM (8eGWb)
But, but Romney wants to fire teachers. And firefighters. And push your grandmother off a cliff. And tie your dogs to the roof of his car. His sons want to rape your women and his wife wants to dine on the entrails of your babies.
I am firmly of the belief that Romney will get a lot of votes here in WA (not enough to win the state, but a decent showing) and yet if you ask anyone here outright if they voted for him they will deny it.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 29, 2012 03:37 PM (RZ8pf)
I don't think so....I think Roberts said "hey, you guys fucked up putting this gu in office; it's not OUR job to kill what they did. It's YOUR job to think before you vote, OR to vote in the first f'in place". Paraphrased.
The law STANDS now. The issue is settled in the SC's eyes.
It's up to this country to stop it in Nov. THAT was the main jist of Roberts' ruling, imo.
Posted by: 4 months to go at June 29, 2012 03:37 PM (v1uZf)
Does the Supreme Court's decision make you more or less likely to vote for Barack Obama for re-election, or does it not impact your opinion?
More likely 14%
Less Likely 29%
Not Sure 5%
No Impact 51%
--------------
No Impact 51%......?
This just means that these people have no clue what's in ObamaTaxCare.
No...fucking...clue.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 03:37 PM (jPxSq)
...if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions...
The former CBO just said that the change that was caused by the SCOTUS decision could increase the cost of Obamacare by $500 BILLION over the next 10 years:
And if Romney wins the election, then the Pubbies get to decide what gets sent to the CBO for scoring, right?
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 03:37 PM (0xqzf)
I think yes were it not for Barky's skin colour. There are some real racists in this country, and it isn't the conventional ones the MFM would have you believe.
Posted by: dogfish at June 29, 2012 03:38 PM (N2yhW)
Posted by: teej at June 29, 2012 03:40 PM (9ek7+)
It's up to this country to stop it in Nov. THAT was the main jist of Roberts' ruling, imo.
Wow. You are giving Roberts a LOT of credit. I hope you stretched out before all of that contortion.
The only thing I can credit him for is being a coward and a knave with no sense of duty.
Posted by: garrett at June 29, 2012 03:40 PM (8eGWb)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 03:40 PM (mO2XR)
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2012 03:41 PM (Xb3hu)
Imagine filling out the equivalent of a tax form in order to see a specialist. Each time.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at June 29, 2012 03:43 PM (X/+QT)
Don't mistake what I said. I think Roberts should have voted it down.
I'm just interpreting what I think he did. What went through his head. Not saying I agree with it.
Posted by: 4 months to go at June 29, 2012 03:43 PM (v1uZf)
Posted by: Sherlock at June 29, 2012 03:44 PM (ZuemH)
The Dem's don't have to admit dick. They're doing exactly what they did before; swear up and down that it's not a tax.
The ruling is not the golden lasso you think it is.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 29, 2012 03:44 PM (famk3)
Roberts said as a tax, it will stand, as a mandate it will not.
That was my interpretation of it. But IANAL; I studied Engineering.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 03:44 PM (0xqzf)
JINDAL/WEST 2012Â….because America is worth saving and Obamacare is worth repealing!
Posted by: NoMittens at June 29, 2012 03:44 PM (z8Cts)
Posted by: toby928© at June 29, 2012 03:44 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: toby928© at June 29, 2012 03:45 PM (QupBk)
That was my interpretation of it. But IANAL; I studied Engineering.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 07:44 PM (0xqzf)
WHOA !
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:45 PM (nTgAI)
Pragmatic you are nothing if not consistently idiotic.
Get back to Hot Air, you fucking paste eater.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 29, 2012 03:48 PM (famk3)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 07:40 PM (mO2XR)
SCOTUS doesn't care what they call it. They only care what it is insofar as what they determine it to be. They could call it lotto winnings and the SCOTUS wouldn't care.
Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2012 03:48 PM (fEXaF)
JINDAL/WEST 2012Â….because America is worth saving and Obamacare is worth repealing!
Posted by: NoMittens at June 29, 2012 07:44 PM (z8Cts
Elections, how do they work ?
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 03:48 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at June 29, 2012 03:50 PM (C8mVl)
Posted by: NPR Headline News at June 29, 2012 03:51 PM (FcR7P)
You forget, having to backtrack and call it a tax to enforce it might work IF you were dealing with principled people, but you are dealing with democrats and you (and all conservatives and republicans) should know by now that the "rules" of conduct do not apply to them.
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 03:53 PM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2012 07:37 PM (0xqzf)
Per the Byrd rule:
Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian.
If they get the CBO to rate repeal as saving the budget deficit overall, even though it will eliminate a LOT of taxes that are in it it will fly.
If not, they will have to invoke the nuclear option which I don't think the Republicans will do.
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 03:53 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2012 03:53 PM (Xb3hu)
"As Ludwig von Mises spent his life expounding:
A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings."
http://tinyurl.com/6ugfqje
Posted by: starry at June 29, 2012 03:54 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: sherlock at June 29, 2012 03:54 PM (ZuemH)
I still think it is....stunning....that Roberts would do this.
....And then jet off to the ancient fortress of Veletta, Malta....for the rest of the summer.
Did a little searching, and it is a teaching job...."sponsored by The Consortium for Innovative Legal Education".
The particular one in Veletta, Malta...is with the Consortium school, the South Texas College of Law.
Well isn't that just....special.
The Dread Justice Roberts takes a dump on us....then goes off to spend the rest of the summer, out of the country....on a Mediterranean island.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 03:55 PM (jPxSq)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 29, 2012 03:56 PM (HethX)
Posted by: wierd flunky at June 29, 2012 03:57 PM (tlhtD)
I will not dispair
I will not give up hope
I will fight the best I can
I belive we will win
I am po'd
I've had to much to drink
To Amishdude: Lancaster County pines for you
there are to many idiots in this place
Posted by: Michael in Pa at June 29, 2012 03:58 PM (QLKkt)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2012 03:59 PM (/jmMj)
Posted by: Sei Toldjah at June 29, 2012 04:00 PM (0hDIC)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at June 29, 2012 07:50 PM (C8mVl)
Honestly, I forgot how he spelled his name, so I substituted Brennar.
I also fucked up the punctuation. There was supposed to be a period after the selfish.
Posted by: garrett at June 29, 2012 04:01 PM (8eGWb)
What could possibly be more patriotic than a fundraiser in another country on
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 29, 2012 04:02 PM (Qxdfp)
The partisan breakdown in the poll skews to the left.
According to pretty much the last ten years of Gallup's (I think) yearly partisan breakdown poll, the country is around 40% C / 35% M / 25% L, not 30% C / 46% M / 24% L.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2012 04:02 PM (U+vgB)
Doesn't he have to have a fake reason to go besides fundraising with celebrities?
Did I mention I hate him?
No? I hate him. Not "hate" hate, but hate.
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 29, 2012 04:05 PM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 29, 2012 04:06 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Moochelle at June 29, 2012 04:07 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 04:07 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at June 29, 2012 04:07 PM (L7hol)
I believe you are correct. The dick in my ass receded half an inch.
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 29, 2012 04:08 PM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: Paris Hilton at June 29, 2012 04:09 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 29, 2012 04:09 PM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: Moochelle at June 29, 2012 04:09 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2012 04:11 PM (wSncD)
As fluffy mentioned on the other thread....
Romney should go to a US town named 'Paris' on the 4th of July.
There are dozens of them to choose from.
Paris, IA
Paris, ND
Paris, MT
Paris, NY
Paris, GA
Paris, OH
Paris, AR
Paris, OR
....to name a few.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 04:12 PM (jPxSq)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 29, 2012 04:16 PM (/i3Yt)
Posted by: rickl at June 29, 2012 04:23 PM (sdi6R)
I found that if I drive over to another county that has a far smaller population than mine there is nobody there and they have just as many open windows with clerks.
State bureaucracies are simply amazing.
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 04:29 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: TooCon at June 29, 2012 04:35 PM (YcTIW)
Posted by: rabidfox at June 29, 2012 04:39 PM (BqQpk)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 05:12 PM (mO2XR)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at June 29, 2012 05:13 PM (caAEA)
I asked that yesterday. the most reasonable answer that I got was that the Dems make it so hard for an originalist, or true conservative, to get in...see Bork, Thomas, Alito....that GOP presidents have to nominate unknown quantities like Souter, O'Connor, and now Roberts. Scalia is the exception that proves the rule.
Meanwhile, Dems get to nominate the former head of the ACLU in Ginsburg, Breyer, the wise Latina and a former Democratic law clerk in Kagan and they skate on in. All in the name of GOP comity.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 29, 2012 05:15 PM (Asr6U)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 05:17 PM (mO2XR)
Hilton? No wait, he's too gay for that
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2012 05:17 PM (hAvUy)
Posted by: NWConservative at June 29, 2012 05:31 PM (9gSMk)
Posted by: rickl at June 29, 2012 05:38 PM (sdi6R)
Yeah, Romney is a crapshoot. We could get bad squishy Mitt or we could get candidate Mitt who is so far talking a good game. I'll take the chance over the certain booby prize of 4 more years of.......this.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 29, 2012 05:55 PM (Asr6U)
Posted by: rickl at June 29, 2012 06:06 PM (sdi6R)
If they were stunned, regular folks shouldn't feel so bad.....it was a sucker punch from some one you trusted.
Posted by: stare decisis at June 29, 2012 07:10 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: lael at June 29, 2012 08:46 PM (kfIw+)
Umm... why on earth would anyone do that? Because maybe Romney might pick someone who might not be totally conservative as a judge? They know damn well whoever Obama picks will be a 100% rabid extremist to the left.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2012 09:00 PM (r4wIV)
They all stick together
One of them pulls a John Roberts and ass fucks them at the last minute
I'm guessing option two. But it's ok gentlemen drink up, if your household makes under 75k someone else's taxes will pay or your new liver......oh I guess that means the drink and the fucking doctor visits are on me. Fuck you
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 07:10 PM (b2myz)
We still win because VP Rubio will break the 50-50 tie. :p
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 10:42 PM (zrpqj)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2455 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 02:56 PM (mO2XR)