Headline News 2012

by **thinkbui** » Sun 1/01/12 1:32 am

Happy New Year! 2012: the End of Everything.

: HappyNewFear_small.JPG (13.75 KiB) Viewed 4983 times

by **LeoPohl** » Mon 1/02/12 10:42 am

So...when's the asteroid going to hit, the floods drown Mount Everest, and the Anti-Christ going to wipe everyone out? Or is that a little too political? :mrgreen:

by **The Rube** » Mon 1/02/12 11:23 am

LeoPohl wrote:So...when's the asteroid going to hit, the floods drown Mount Everest, and the Anti-Christ going to wipe everyone out? Or is that a little too political?

Dec 21.

by **LeoPohl** » Mon 1/02/12 11:26 am

The Rube wrote:
LeoPohl wrote:So...when's the asteroid going to hit, the floods drown Mount Everest, and the Anti-Christ going to wipe everyone out? Or is that a little too political?

Dec 21.

You mean we have almost all year? :dance:

by **The Rube** » Mon 1/02/12 11:31 am

LeoPohl wrote:
The Rube wrote:
LeoPohl wrote:So...when's the asteroid going to hit, the floods drown Mount Everest, and the Anti-Christ going to wipe everyone out? Or is that a little too political?

Dec 21.

You mean we have almost all year?

Yep, so make it count!

by **st8ofhockey** » Mon 1/02/12 3:57 pm

The Rube wrote:
LeoPohl wrote:
The Rube wrote:
LeoPohl wrote:So...when's the asteroid going to hit, the floods drown Mount Everest, and the Anti-Christ going to wipe everyone out? Or is that a little too political?

Dec 21.

You mean we have almost all year?

Yep, so make it count!

I bet we'll see a spike in births around late August, 2013 :wink:

by **LeoPohl** » Mon 1/02/12 4:37 pm

st8ofhockey wrote:
The Rube wrote:
LeoPohl wrote:
The Rube wrote:
LeoPohl wrote:So...when's the asteroid going to hit, the floods drown Mount Everest, and the Anti-Christ going to wipe everyone out? Or is that a little too political?

Dec 21.

You mean we have almost all year?

Yep, so make it count!

I bet we'll see a spike in births around late August, 2013

Thank you for making me laugh out loud.
:rotflmao:

by **Superstar** » Mon 1/02/12 4:47 pm

st8ofhockey wrote:I bet we'll see a spike in births around late August, 2013

Don't you mean late Sept?

by **st8ofhockey** » Mon 1/02/12 4:54 pm

Superstar wrote:
st8ofhockey wrote:I bet we'll see a spike in births around late August, 2013

Don't you mean late Sept?

In fairness, they may get the deed out of the way a few weeks ahead of time... to be proactive :wink:

by **Kelor** » Mon 1/02/12 5:20 pm

CBS News headline

Santorum singles out Blacks for entitlement reform
Mon Jan 02 09:05:23 PST 2012

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/?tag=hdr;c ... z1iLG8wv3N

Problem is, he never said black. Not once. Taken right from CBS web site including their video attached.

I don't know Santorum from Adam, but I hope he sue's their ass. I thought CBS was supposed to be where I went for unbiased and TRUE stories.

I hope this isn't considered political, as I don't care if he's DUMBACRAT or REBUMBLICAN. This is absolute and total propaganda. Disgusting and illegal I hope.

by **The Rube** » Mon 1/02/12 5:24 pm

Kelor wrote:CBS News headline

Santorum singles out Blacks for entitlement reform
Mon Jan 02 09:05:23 PST 2012

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/?tag=hdr;c ... z1iLG8wv3N

Problem is, he never said black. Not once. Taken right from CBS web site including their video attached.

I don't know Santorum from Adam, but I hope he sue's their ass. I thought CBS was supposed to be where I went for unbiased and TRUE stories.

I hope this isn't considered political, as I don't care if he's DUMBACRAT or REBUMBLICAN. This is absolute and total propaganda. Disgusting.

Terrible.

And note to GPLers: be VERY careful if you decide to google "Santorum." Pay attention to what search result you click on.

by **st8ofhockey** » Mon 1/02/12 5:40 pm

The Rube wrote:
Kelor wrote:CBS News headline

Santorum singles out Blacks for entitlement reform
Mon Jan 02 09:05:23 PST 2012

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/?tag=hdr;c ... z1iLG8wv3N

Problem is, he never said black. Not once. Taken right from CBS web site including their video attached.

I don't know Santorum from Adam, but I hope he sue's their ass. I thought CBS was supposed to be where I went for unbiased and TRUE stories.

I hope this isn't considered political, as I don't care if he's DUMBACRAT or REBUMBLICAN. This is absolute and total propaganda. Disgusting.

Terrible.

And note to GPLers: be VERY careful if you decide to google "Santorum." Pay attention to what search result you click on.

Just searched that on Urban Dictionary :puke:

by **st8ofhockey** » Mon 1/02/12 5:42 pm

Also, the CBS News link goes to a video about Meryl Streep. Perhaps they took the Santorum story down?

by **Kelor** » Mon 1/02/12 5:48 pm

st8ofhockey wrote:Also, the CBS News link goes to a video about Meryl Streep. Perhaps they took the Santorum story down?

Wow. It's gone. I bet they have already accomplished plenty by posting that.

by **st8ofhockey** » Mon 1/02/12 5:53 pm

Kelor wrote:
st8ofhockey wrote:Also, the CBS News link goes to a video about Meryl Streep. Perhaps they took the Santorum story down?

Wow. It's gone. I bet they have already accomplished plenty by posting that.

In an effort to keep this discussion as apolitical as possible... I will redact candidate names and party affiliations, but I was flipping through the channels the other night, and ABC's Nightly News was broadcasting a story titled "Jekyl and Hyde" criticizing a certain political candidate and the ads he was running in his campaign. It seemed more a political soapbox that legitimate news... sadly, I think the days of journalistic objectivity are gone.

by **Tee09** » Mon 1/02/12 5:59 pm

st8ofhockey wrote:
Kelor wrote:
st8ofhockey wrote:Also, the CBS News link goes to a video about Meryl Streep. Perhaps they took the Santorum story down?

Wow. It's gone. I bet they have already accomplished plenty by posting that.

In an effort to keep this discussion as apolitical as possible... I will redact candidate names and party affiliations, but I was flipping through the channels the other night, and ABC's Nightly News was broadcasting a story titled "Jekyl and Hyde" criticizing a certain political candidate and the ads he was running in his campaign. It seemed more a political soapbox that legitimate news... sadly, I think the days of journalistic objectivity are gone.

I'd argue that there hasn't been journalistic objectivity for a long time, but now we have many more sources of information to show what a bunch of dishonest and incompetent hacks some in the media are. I love the internet; being able to check out anything and learn more within seconds absolutely rocks.

by **Kelor** » Mon 1/02/12 6:04 pm

Tee09 wrote:
st8ofhockey wrote:
Kelor wrote:
st8ofhockey wrote:Also, the CBS News link goes to a video about Meryl Streep. Perhaps they took the Santorum story down?

Wow. It's gone. I bet they have already accomplished plenty by posting that.

In an effort to keep this discussion as apolitical as possible... I will redact candidate names and party affiliations, but I was flipping through the channels the other night, and ABC's Nightly News was broadcasting a story titled "Jekyl and Hyde" criticizing a certain political candidate and the ads he was running in his campaign. It seemed more a political soapbox that legitimate news... sadly, I think the days of journalistic objectivity are gone.

I'd argue that there hasn't been journalistic objectivity for a long time, but now we have many more sources of information to show what a bunch of dishonest and incompetent hacks some in the media are. I love the internet; being able to check out anything and learn more within seconds absolutely rocks.

I agree to a point. I'm guessing that 20 years ago the ABC,CBC, NBC's of the world wouldn't intentionally change quotes. They certainly would omit both sides of arguments, but I'm thinking they would be less blatant than this.

by **Jupiter** » Mon 1/02/12 6:07 pm

You guys really need to do what I do.... Ignore ALL of the political BS on TV and other media outlets until at least mid October of this year. Trust me! You will fell a lot better in the end. :good2:

by **Norm** » Mon 1/02/12 6:51 pm

Jupiter wrote:You guys really need to do what I do.... Ignore ALL of the political BS on TV and other media outlets until at least mid October of this year. Trust me! You will fell a lot better in the end.

Can't. I'm addicted to the crap.

by **WPoS** » Mon 1/02/12 6:55 pm

Jupiter wrote:You guys really need to do what I do.... Ignore ALL of the political BS on TV and other media outlets until at least mid October of this year. Trust me! You will fell a lot better in the end.

"fell better"? :ahhh:

W

by **Kelor** » Mon 1/02/12 9:12 pm

Rumor is Castro is dead -- or not. Other rumor is that clicking on Castro dead links is a computer virus.

by **st8ofhockey** » Mon 1/02/12 9:21 pm

Kelor wrote:Rumor is Castro is dead -- or not. Other rumor is that clicking on Castro dead links is a computer virus.

No legitimate news outlets (that I can find) are reporting it... and I'm not going out of my way to find links to click :wink:

by **Blueliner** » Mon 1/02/12 10:42 pm

Kelor wrote:CBS News headline

Santorum singles out Blacks for entitlement reform
Mon Jan 02 09:05:23 PST 2012

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/?tag=hdr;c ... z1iLG8wv3N

Problem is, he never said black. Not once. Taken right from CBS web site including their video attached.

I don't know Santorum from Adam, but I hope he sue's their ass. I thought CBS was supposed to be where I went for unbiased and TRUE stories.

I hope this isn't considered political, as I don't care if he's DUMBACRAT or REBUMBLICAN. This is absolute and total propaganda. Disgusting and illegal I hope.

When I watch the video that's what he says.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... nt-reform/

by **Greyeagle** » Mon 1/02/12 10:44 pm

Kelor wrote:Rumor is Castro is dead -- or not. Other rumor is that clicking on Castro dead links is a computer virus.

I'd be more interested if the rumor was he's still alive. :biggrin2:

by **dxmnkd316** » Mon 1/02/12 10:48 pm

Blueliner wrote:
Kelor wrote:CBS News headline

Santorum singles out Blacks for entitlement reform
Mon Jan 02 09:05:23 PST 2012

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/?tag=hdr;c ... z1iLG8wv3N

Problem is, he never said black. Not once. Taken right from CBS web site including their video attached.

I don't know Santorum from Adam, but I hope he sue's their ass. I thought CBS was supposed to be where I went for unbiased and TRUE stories.

I hope this isn't considered political, as I don't care if he's DUMBACRAT or REBUMBLICAN. This is absolute and total propaganda. Disgusting and illegal I hope.

When I watch the video that's what he says.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... nt-reform/

Well, Santorum just shot himself in the foot.

by **Kelor** » Mon 1/02/12 11:06 pm

You could interpret that stumble to say many things -- including him saying nothing of the sort. Nothing of the sort is a much more logical conclusion.

I will say your link video sounded more like "black" than the original video I linked, but I think it's still a reach.

by **trixR4kids** » Mon 1/02/12 11:11 pm

Well you can interpret things however you want I guess...

by **dxmnkd316** » Mon 1/02/12 11:14 pm

Kelor wrote:You could interpret that stumble to say many things -- including him saying nothing of the sort. Nothing of the sort is a much more logical conclusion.

I will say your link video sounded more like "black" than the original video I linked, but I think it's still a reach.

You still think what's a reach?

by **The Rube** » Mon 1/02/12 11:18 pm

Um. Wow. Just watched the vid. Uh, yeah, he said "black." Whether or not he truly meant what he said, no one can say. It was a stumble. But either way, he's done.

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 9:46 am

So it looks like the media got this one right...? Journalistic excellence is back!

by **Tee09** » Tue 1/03/12 10:06 am

Sure sounds like "black people" to me. One of those things that it's probably best not to say, regardless of your intentions or whether the relevant statistics back you up. Will it lose him some black voters? Probably not, as something like 92% of them end up going for Obama.

As far as journalistic excellence being back, the story made a point that Santorum was wrong because only 9% of Iowa food stamp recipients are black, while the majority are white. A better number to look at to make a point is what percentage of black people are on food stamps vs white people. Sure, 9 % of food stamp recipients are black, which is almost four times the proportion in the general Iowa population that is black (2.5%). Knowing the type of kids who end up being journalists, I assume this is due to stupidity and not any desire to be intentionally misleading. An excellent journalist would have reported what Santorum said or done a relevant analysis if they intended to make a further point based on that.

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 10:10 am

I agree with the above... was just ribbing you guys

I'm ready to be done with the primary/caucus stuff. Ugh. Seriously, doesn't GB or Canada have a system where they call an election and then it happens in like 3 months? Let's change to that, I'm so sick of all this campaigning. Especially in this election... it's pretty clear that Romney (and maybe Gingrich, I guess) is the only nationally viable candidate.

by **Tee09** » Tue 1/03/12 10:12 am

The X Factor wrote:I agree with the above... was just ribbing you guys

I'm ready to be done with the primary/caucus stuff. Ugh. Seriously, doesn't GB or Canada have a system where they call an election and then it happens in like 3 months? Let's change to that, I'm so sick of all this campaigning. Especially in this election... it's pretty clear that Romney (and maybe Gingrich, I guess) is the only nationally viable candidate.

It's shaping up to be a douche vs turd type year.

by **dxmnkd316** » Tue 1/03/12 10:16 am

The X Factor wrote:I agree with the above... was just ribbing you guys

I'm ready to be done with the primary/caucus stuff. Ugh. Seriously, doesn't GB or Canada have a system where they call an election and then it happens in like 3 months? Let's change to that, I'm so sick of all this campaigning. Especially in this election... it's pretty clear that Romney (and maybe Gingrich, I guess) is the only nationally viable candidate.

I've been saying it for weeks now. Romney will win the nomination. Period. Only one thing has been constant throughout the waning and waxing of each campaign: Romney has always been in second, thus, he's always been in first.

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 10:21 am

Yeah, it's going to be an election between someone the GOP doesn't want (Romney) and someone they REALLY don't want (Obama). Could be fun :/ As mentioned above, I'm just sick of all the campaigning. Just have the election already and get it over with.

by **Dances With Gophers** » Tue 1/03/12 10:26 am

dxmnkd316 wrote:
The X Factor wrote:I agree with the above... was just ribbing you guys

I'm ready to be done with the primary/caucus stuff. Ugh. Seriously, doesn't GB or Canada have a system where they call an election and then it happens in like 3 months? Let's change to that, I'm so sick of all this campaigning. Especially in this election... it's pretty clear that Romney (and maybe Gingrich, I guess) is the only nationally viable candidate.

I've been saying it for weeks now. Romney will win the nomination. Period. Only one thing has been constant throughout the waning and waxing of each campaign: Romney has always been in second, thus, he's always been in first.

It's amazing how little attention Ron Paul is getting from the mass media folks. It's as if they're actively trying to ignore him.

I'd be interested in a GPL straw poll, just for kicks and grins. It would be a much better baromoter of the GOP's current political state vs. Iowa...

by **Tee09** » Tue 1/03/12 10:34 am

dxmnkd316 wrote:I've been saying it for weeks now. Romney will win the nomination. Period. Only one thing has been constant throughout the waning and waxing of each campaign: Romney has always been in second, thus, he's always been in first.

It will be him or Rick Perry, but I put Perry's chances somewhere around 10%. There's a very sizable "not-Romney" vote that has been searching for somebody to stick to. If you get some of these second tier candidates to drop out, that support will end up going to whoever is still around and not Romney.

by **Composer** » Tue 1/03/12 11:27 am

Tee09 wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:I've been saying it for weeks now. Romney will win the nomination. Period. Only one thing has been constant throughout the waning and waxing of each campaign: Romney has always been in second, thus, he's always been in first.

It will be him or Rick Perry, but I put Perry's chances somewhere around 10%. There's a very sizable "not-Romney" vote that has been searching for somebody to stick to. If you get some of these second tier candidates to drop out, that support will end up going to whoever is still around and not Romney.

Which could lead to no one winning outright and the nomination going to the convention. This could lead to a completely different candidate getting the nomination.

by **Tee09** » Tue 1/03/12 11:29 am

Composer wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:I've been saying it for weeks now. Romney will win the nomination. Period. Only one thing has been constant throughout the waning and waxing of each campaign: Romney has always been in second, thus, he's always been in first.

It will be him or Rick Perry, but I put Perry's chances somewhere around 10%. There's a very sizable "not-Romney" vote that has been searching for somebody to stick to. If you get some of these second tier candidates to drop out, that support will end up going to whoever is still around and not Romney.

Which could lead to no one winning outright and the nomination going to the convention. This could lead to a completely different candidate getting the nomination.

That would be cool to see. When's the last time a nomination was undecided going into a convention?

by **st8ofhockey** » Tue 1/03/12 11:43 am

Dances With Gophers wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:
The X Factor wrote:I agree with the above... was just ribbing you guys

I'm ready to be done with the primary/caucus stuff. Ugh. Seriously, doesn't GB or Canada have a system where they call an election and then it happens in like 3 months? Let's change to that, I'm so sick of all this campaigning. Especially in this election... it's pretty clear that Romney (and maybe Gingrich, I guess) is the only nationally viable candidate.

I've been saying it for weeks now. Romney will win the nomination. Period. Only one thing has been constant throughout the waning and waxing of each campaign: Romney has always been in second, thus, he's always been in first.

It's amazing how little attention Ron Paul is getting from the mass media folks. It's as if they're actively trying to ignore him.

I'd be interested in a GPL straw poll, just for kicks and grins. It would be a much better baromoter of the GOP's current political state vs. Iowa...

Again, doing my best to stay apolitical and non-inflammatory:

I don't expect Paul to get the nomination, simply because his ideas are so far from the mainstream. I think the GOP realizes they need to nominate an "electable" candidate, and IMO the typical undecided voter would view a lot of his ideas as too extreme. That being said, it would be VERY interesting to see Ron Paul debate the President on economic issues, as they are approaching the subject from fundamentally opposite sides of the spectrum.

by **Dances With Gophers** » Tue 1/03/12 12:14 pm

st8ofhockey wrote:Again, doing my best to stay apolitical and non-inflammatory:

I don't expect Paul to get the nomination, simply because his ideas are so far from the mainstream. I think the GOP realizes they need to nominate an "electable" candidate, and IMO the typical undecided voter would view a lot of his ideas as too extreme. That being said, it would be VERY interesting to see Ron Paul debate the President on economic issues, as they are approaching the subject from fundamentally opposite sides of the spectrum.

Also doing my best to stay apoitical and strictly analytical - it seems as if Paul is getting a lot of love/votes precisely because his ideas are so far from the political mainstream. Clearly, the political status quo is fubar. Voters - on both sides - are reaching their limit. Obama promised change, but I think he quickly learned to play the traditional political game. Just ask environmentalists how they feel about the performance of Obama's administration thus far. I'm relatively certain both Romney and Newt would fall lock-step into the traditional political process as well. Paul is so far "out there", that no traditional politician wants to be associated with him. for the most part, they're all about getting re-elected and retaining power/control - playing the traditional political game gives them the best shot at doing so. However, if Paul wins the nomination, you could very well see a shift in the way politics is played (i.e., traditionalists would have no choice but to acknowledge the voters frustration). Then again, not much changed after Jesse the Mind got elected into office, eh?

In real news, 3M just announced the acquisition of Avery Dennison's Consumer Office Products Division, thus making my life at work a nightmare of endless paperwork :chainsaw:

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 12:25 pm

While I disagree with much of what Ron Paul stands for, I DO admire his unshaking belief in those things. It IS nice to see a politician sticking with what they believe in no matter what the polls say. I think that is a big plus for Paul, and I agree with DWG that he doesn't seem to be "playing the game"

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 12:30 pm

Further: I think the same about John McCain, with the exception of his 2008 presidential run. When he's in congress, I think he's one of the most effective congresspeople since he isn't afraid to make a stand for what he believes in.

by **thinkbui** » Tue 1/03/12 12:42 pm

Last year we had twins born in Rockford, IL a minute apart around midnight on December 31, 2010 and January 1, 2011.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10411#p335188

This year, there is a similar twin births closer to 4 minutes apart in Rapid City, SD.

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/9542 ... ent-years-

by **Hammy** » Tue 1/03/12 1:16 pm

Santorum definitely said black people. It was as clear as day.

by **rowshkex** » Tue 1/03/12 1:32 pm

The X Factor wrote:While I disagree with much of what Ron Paul stands for, I DO admire his unshaking belief in those things. It IS nice to see a politician sticking with what they believe in no matter what the polls say. I think that is a big plus for Paul, and I agree with DWG that he doesn't seem to be "playing the game"

...which is exactly why he's really good at playing the game.

by **team22tank** » Tue 1/03/12 2:32 pm

The X Factor wrote:While I disagree with much of what Ron Paul stands for, I DO admire his unshaking belief in those things. It IS nice to see a politician sticking with what they believe in no matter what the polls say. I think that is a big plus for Paul, and I agree with DWG that he doesn't seem to be "playing the game"

Just curious what Paul stands for that you disagree with? And not so much you personally but in general I have been hearing a lot of broad statements about him but never any specifics.

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 3:00 pm

His stances against intervention (be it financial aid, humanitarian aid, trade, etc.) in foreign countries. I also think he has a much too strict view of the constitution as a non-living document. That's what I think, and I believe those are some of the main "knocks" on his views. Lots of people like him for those same reasons.

by **Tee09** » Tue 1/03/12 3:07 pm

Ron Paul is the closest to my point of view on domestic economic and fiscal issues. That's a huge plus in the current environment. I'd be willing to overlook the more kooky libertarian stuff like legalizing heroin if that was the only weirdness. He has some foreign policy ideas (he's a strict isolationist who would not have fought the civil war or wwii even if he knew about the holocaust, and doesn't believe that there are some people who want to kill us because of who we are) and believes in some conspiracy theories (9/11 trutherism, bilderbergers, etc) that are automatic disqualifiers for me. This is stuff that you hear out of some crazy hippy on the street corner, not a guy who is running for president.

by **5 O.T.** » Tue 1/03/12 3:31 pm

Hammy wrote:Santorum definitely said black people. It was as clear as day.

Big deal. Not nearly as inflammatory as candidate Obama's "Typical white person" comment when discussing his grandmother's fear of black men that passed her by on the street.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-03 ... ry-clinton

by **Slap Shot** » Tue 1/03/12 3:33 pm

5 O.T. wrote:
Hammy wrote:Santorum definitely said black people. It was as clear as day.

Big deal. Not nearly as inflammatory as candidate Obama's "Typical white person" comment when discussing his grandmother's fear of black men that passed her by on the street.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-03 ... ry-clinton

....aaaaaand it just got political.

by **5 O.T.** » Tue 1/03/12 3:37 pm

Slap Shot wrote:
5 O.T. wrote:
Hammy wrote:Santorum definitely said black people. It was as clear as day.

Big deal. Not nearly as inflammatory as candidate Obama's "Typical white person" comment when discussing his grandmother's fear of black men that passed her by on the street.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-03 ... ry-clinton

....aaaaaand it just got political.

Right.....always ok as long as it's not your ox getting gored. Maybe you should scroll up the page a little bit.

by **Jupiter** » Tue 1/03/12 3:43 pm

Just an FYI...

There are 6 and a half years of Headline News saved in the Old Discussions area of the message board. It's interesting to go back and see what was going on in the world back in 2006.

viewforum.php?f=34

by **Slap Shot** » Tue 1/03/12 3:44 pm

5 O.T. wrote:
Slap Shot wrote:
5 O.T. wrote:
Hammy wrote:Santorum definitely said black people. It was as clear as day.

Big deal. Not nearly as inflammatory as candidate Obama's "Typical white person" comment when discussing his grandmother's fear of black men that passed her by on the street.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-03 ... ry-clinton

....aaaaaand it just got political.

Right.....always ok as long as it's not your ox getting gored. Maybe you should scroll up the page a little bit.

fyi I'm begging for a reason not to be forced to vote 3rd party or write someone in so "my" ox is irrelevant.

by **Handyman** » Tue 1/03/12 3:44 pm

I can think of a dozen reasons not to vote for Santorum and that mishap isnt one of them. The guy is scum. (and not because of political affiliation)

by **Jupiter** » Tue 1/03/12 3:47 pm

Handyman wrote:The guy is scum. (and not because of political affiliation)

I thought all politicians were scum?

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 1/03/12 3:49 pm

Jup times infinity. Anyone with a large enough ego to assume that they have what it takes to run the United States clearly has something wrong with them, no matter what side of the aisle they're on.

by **Handyman** » Tue 1/03/12 4:00 pm

Santorum is scum as a person, not because he is a politician.

by **thinkbui** » Tue 1/03/12 4:01 pm

I'm a little surprised that none of the other candidates have jumped all over him for it.

by **Tee09** » Wed 1/04/12 12:34 am

Guess I'll revise my 10% Perry chances down to zero and give that 10% to "a candidate to be named later".

by **dxmnkd316** » Wed 1/04/12 12:49 am

98% in and Santorum leads Romney by FIVE votes.

by **Armadillo** » Wed 1/04/12 1:38 am

dxmnkd316 wrote:98% in and Santorum leads Romney by FIVE votes.

by **dxmnkd316** » Wed 1/04/12 7:51 am

Seriously? You're acting like Iowa actually counts. The GOP picked Mike Huckabee for their candidate in Iowa last time around. He won the nomination right? I forget.

Also, the Mittster wins by 8 votes.

by **5 O.T.** » Wed 1/04/12 10:56 am

Handyman wrote:Santorum is scum as a person, not because he is a politician.

What do you mean?

by **Hobey Baker** » Wed 1/04/12 11:10 am

Handyman wrote:Santorum is scum as a person, not because he is a politician.

Why is that? Don't agree with him politically? Is he too socially conservative for you?

Iowa does matter .. it narrows the field.

Going forward, we are going to hear from Mit, Santorum, Newt and Ron Paul. Huntsman has put a big effort into NH. Perry and Bachman are done.

by **george** » Wed 1/04/12 11:15 am

5 O.T. wrote:
Handyman wrote:Santorum is scum as a person, not because he is a politician.

What do you mean?

Did he abandon his wife when she got cancer?

by **Hobey Baker** » Wed 1/04/12 11:21 am

george wrote:
5 O.T. wrote:
Handyman wrote:Santorum is scum as a person, not because he is a politician.

What do you mean?

Did he abandon his wife when she got cancer?

That is a false statement.

by **Handyman** » Wed 1/04/12 11:24 am

No that was the previous GOP frontrunner

And he didnt abandon her...he just divorced her while she was in the hospital...with cancer

This field of hopefuls (including the incumbent) is so brutal I don't even have words for it.

As for Santorum, I have heard about him and his views for years. I would google a list, but I dont want to google his name for reasons others can tell you about

by **Norm** » Wed 1/04/12 11:24 am

Sucks that people in MN basically have no say in who the nominees will be. It's all pretty much decided by the earlier states.

by **dxmnkd316** » Wed 1/04/12 11:26 am

george wrote:
5 O.T. wrote:
Handyman wrote:Santorum is scum as a person, not because he is a politician.

What do you mean?

Did he abandon his wife when she got cancer?

John Edwards?

by **Hobey Baker** » Wed 1/04/12 11:36 am

Handyman wrote:No that was the previous GOP frontrunner And he didnt abandon her...he just divorced her while she was in the hospital...with cancer

This field of hopefuls (including the incumbent) is so brutal I don't even have words for it.

As for Santorum, I have heard about him and his views for years. I would google a list, but I dont want to google his name for reasons others can tell you about

Heard about him? To make a statement like you made, there must be some position that really bothers you.

Right to life (conception)? Marriage only between a man and woman? Took earmarks for Penn? Wants to control spending / reduce budget? Wants to go after Iran? Wants a strong military?

Is there one particular issue that stands out?

by **Hobey Baker** » Wed 1/04/12 11:37 am

Strib reporting that Bachman is suspending her Presidential campaign.

by **Jupiter** » Wed 1/04/12 11:40 am

Hobey Baker wrote:Strib reporting that Bachman is suspending her Presidential campaign.

Can someone close the border to Iowa so she can't come back here???

by **Chris Eckes** » Wed 1/04/12 11:46 am

I don't know specifics, but I'm pretty sure that Santorum hasn't made himself many friends in the GLBT community, which is why when you google his name you come up with something unexpected.

EDIT: what I know is that someone in the GLBT community was so upset with the way Santorum treated them that he vowed to make it so whenever anyone searched for his name on the internet it would come up with something disgusting. He succeeded.

by **PrideOnIce** » Wed 1/04/12 11:47 am

Good for her

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots- ... 06413.html

Who is online