Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75084.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Empty Election

Never before have voters people had more opportunities to participate in the political conversation; share and disseminate information, and speak directly to our political leaders. Yet the dialogue coming from both parties is as dysfunctional and corrosive as it has ever been in a campaign.

This has been a relentlessly nasty, divisive and vapid race. The only way to achieve victory has been through negative advertising — where the candidates play a secondary role to Super PACs.

The result has been a declining level of confidence, both domestic and international, about our leadership role. Our political system, once the ideal, is now a subject of widespread ridicule.


Enthusiasm about voting in the election is down across the board, according to Gallup’s latest poll. The GOP primary campaign has been marked by low voter turnout as well as widespread dissatisfaction among Republicans with what were the four leading contenders.
Indeed, the only people who appear enthused are the handful of mega-donors, bundlers, lobbyists, hedge fund managers and inside-the-Beltway powerbrokers now cutting deals, funding ad wars and propping up weakening primary contenders through massive cash injections.

Mitt Romney’s negative rating, for example, vastly exceeds his positive. Roughly 50 percent of voters view the former Massachusetts governor unfavorably in the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll, while only 34 percent are favorable. Voters have no clear sense of what Romney stands for, what his administration will mean and why his candidacy is at all relevant to the electorate’s deep-seated and systematic angst and fear about their economic futures.

What Fehnstrom didn’t say, and what most commentators have missed, is that whatever Romney ultimately writes on the sketchboard is unlikely to be responsive to the problems facing America. Three-quarters of voters now believe that our elected leaders in Washington govern without the consent of the people, a majority of Americans think that the nation is in decline and believe that their children will not be able to achieve the American Dream, according to Gallup.




Thanks, Conks.

Gotta throw the donks in with this one - the Dems are the controlling party in Washington these days through the Senate and the White House, and the article clearly says that people are very negative about Washington. Being slightly less despised than the other party is not exactly something that writes well on a celebration banner.

GannonFan wrote:Gotta throw the donks in with this one - the Dems are the controlling party in Washington these days through the Senate and the White House, and the article clearly says that people are very negative about Washington. Being slightly less despised than the other party is not exactly something that writes well on a celebration banner.

Good thoughts, but Conks own 99% of this phenomenon, Ganny, demonstrated simply by their conduct and shallow rhetoric in the last nine months.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Gotta throw the donks in with this one - the Dems are the controlling party in Washington these days through the Senate and the White House, and the article clearly says that people are very negative about Washington. Being slightly less despised than the other party is not exactly something that writes well on a celebration banner.

Good thoughts, but Conks own 99% of this phenomenon, Ganny, demonstrated simply by their conduct and shallow rhetoric in the last nine months.

Right. Everything was going so well with a Democratic Controlled Congress and White House. Confidence was at an all time high and the economy was on the right track. C'mon buddy. 99%? I think it's 50/50. Both parties act like children.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Gotta throw the donks in with this one - the Dems are the controlling party in Washington these days through the Senate and the White House, and the article clearly says that people are very negative about Washington. Being slightly less despised than the other party is not exactly something that writes well on a celebration banner.

Good thoughts, but Conks own 99% of this phenomenon, Ganny, demonstrated simply by their conduct and shallow rhetoric in the last nine months.

Huh? This has been going on for far more than the past nine months. We're entering at least the 3rd decade of this political sentiment of "we're everything good and the other side is everything evil". This has been a long time coming and partisans on both sides have done their best to fan the flames. Shallow rhetoric has been the speech of choice for that time as well.

GannonFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Good thoughts, but Conks own 99% of this phenomenon, Ganny, demonstrated simply by their conduct and shallow rhetoric in the last nine months.

Huh? This has been going on for far more than the past nine months. We're entering at least the 3rd decade of this political sentiment of "we're everything good and the other side is everything evil". This has been a long time coming and partisans on both sides have done their best to fan the flames. Shallow rhetoric has been the speech of choice for that time as well.

Third decade? Ring a bell?

That's why I say it's mostly a Conk phenomenon. Old azzholes committing subterfuge to protect their old ways, thereby shitting on the little people and hindering progress

Tell me, if trickle down is soooo fvcking good, why are we in this alleged mess and, even after you blame Donks, why hasn't it relieved us of this latest quagmire???

Three decades is correct. Started with Z's hero, Ronald W. Reagan.






"Fellow Americans. I shit on you and your grandkids. May God be merciful to me and Mommy."

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Huh? This has been going on for far more than the past nine months. We're entering at least the 3rd decade of this political sentiment of "we're everything good and the other side is everything evil". This has been a long time coming and partisans on both sides have done their best to fan the flames. Shallow rhetoric has been the speech of choice for that time as well.

Third decade? Ring a bell?

That's why I say it's mostly a Conk phenomenon. Old azzholes committing subterfuge to protect their old ways, thereby shitting on the little people and hindering progress

Tell me, if trickle down is soooo fvcking good, why are we in this alleged mess and, even after you blame Donks, why hasn't it relieved us of this latest quagmire???

Three decades is correct. Started with Z's hero, Ronald W. Reagan.






"Fellow Americans. I **** on you and your grandkids. May God be merciful to me and Mommy."

Thank goodness all was rosey and peachy before Reagan came into office - I too remember most of the 70's as a time of idyllic peace and happiness and prosperity. Nary a worry back then.

GannonFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Third decade? Ring a bell?

That's why I say it's mostly a Conk phenomenon. Old azzholes committing subterfuge to protect their old ways, thereby shitting on the little people and hindering progress

Tell me, if trickle down is soooo fvcking good, why are we in this alleged mess and, even after you blame Donks, why hasn't it relieved us of this latest quagmire???

Three decades is correct. Started with Z's hero, Ronald W. Reagan.






"Fellow Americans. I **** on you and your grandkids. May God be merciful to me and Mommy."

Thank goodness all was rosey and peachy before Reagan came into office - I too remember most of the 70's as a time of idyllic peace and happiness and prosperity. Nary a worry back then.

Cap'n Cat yearns for the halcyon days of James Earl Carter, Jr.

I could give 2 shits less about what the world thinks. I'm not moving anywhere else.

Stealing a line from Carman on this one:
[youtube][/youtube]

GannonFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Third decade? Ring a bell?

That's why I say it's mostly a Conk phenomenon. Old azzholes committing subterfuge to protect their old ways, thereby shitting on the little people and hindering progress

Tell me, if trickle down is soooo fvcking good, why are we in this alleged mess and, even after you blame Donks, why hasn't it relieved us of this latest quagmire???

Three decades is correct. Started with Z's hero, Ronald W. Reagan.






"Fellow Americans. I **** on you and your grandkids. May God be merciful to me and Mommy."

Thank goodness all was rosey and peachy before Reagan came into office - I too remember most of the 70's as a time of idyllic peace and happiness and prosperity. Nary a worry back then.

Another tired shot at Carter, huh?

I know that you and IvyTalk are smart guys. Try to think beyond Conk talking points and absorb my little history lesson for you guys.

In the 1970's several large events occurred that hamstrung America, all of which have impact today and none of which were brought on by the President you vilify. First, the Vietnam War and its ignominious conclusion cast a dark cloud over the nation. Second, Watergate, the single largest political scandal in modern times (promulgated by a Conk prez, I might add) created an environment of political cynicism on the part of the American electorate such as has not been seen since. Third, the Arab Oil embargo. It fvcked Nixon, it fvcked Ford, it fvcked Carter and it fvcked America. Once again, America, lacking vision from its presidents 1970 through 1977, was caught with its pants down. The only thing Conks could muster was saber-rattling, threats to intervene militarily. Typical.

Regarding the latter, President Carter was the first man in that office to attempt to take on the crisis. He proposed massive energy conservation programs, set up related environmental rules as potential solutions and suggested development of other forms of energy. The Conks, in a wild attempt to exhume the ghosts of a "prosperous" post-war America, fought tooth and nail to maintain the status quo on oil, something that hobbles us to this day, thanks to their oil lobby and oilies like W, George I and Cheney, dashed all his programs.

The is NO WAY, according to Conks back then, that Americans, God's chosen people, should ever deign to lower thermostats, wear a sweater at home, buy smaller cars, conserve a precious resource and pursue alternative energy. Flag wrapped and citing God as their leader, the Conks handed out blinders to America then painted a picture of the perpetual malt shop in Dixon, IL, 1949. Unfortunately a majority of the electorate bought it and it's been nothing but trouble since.

No, the days under Carter were not "halcyon", IT, but nor were the days under Nixon, Ford and Reagan. He played with the cards he was dealt, much like Obama is doing right now. And Reagan's "accomplishments" were saccharin sweet, artificial and temporary, and were ultimately found to be unworkable and unsustainable. Trickle down, indeed.


So, again, I have to say, "Thanks, Conks." Before you shit on someone in the past, do a little research.

Man, re-reading that...that there's some fvcking Pulitzer material, boyzz!!!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Gotta throw the donks in with this one - the Dems are the controlling party in Washington these days through the Senate and the White House, and the article clearly says that people are very negative about Washington. Being slightly less despised than the other party is not exactly something that writes well on a celebration banner.

Good thoughts, but Conks own 99% of this phenomenon, Ganny, demonstrated simply by their conduct and shallow rhetoric in the last nine months.

You are priceless. Moronic, but priceless.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Man, re-reading that...that there's some fvcking Pulitzer material, boyzz!!!

Good to see you can laugh at fiction, too.


Edit: Oh, and BTW, the world has been laughing at us since we were stupid enough to elect Obama in Nov' 08.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Man, re-reading that...that there's some fvcking Pulitzer material, boyzz!!!

Good to see you can laugh at fiction, too.


Edit: Oh, and BTW, the world has been laughing at us since we were stupid enough to elect Obama in Nov' 08.

Man, your hate can be felt all the way here in Minnesota!

The world heaved a collective sigh of RELIEF when he was elected, son! Shit, he even got a Nobel...just for being someone other than a warmongering Conk killing (dark-skinned) kids in every other country!!

BTW, howdja like that schooling on history up there? Pulitzer, huh?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Good to see you can laugh at fiction, too.


Edit: Oh, and BTW, the world has been laughing at us since we were stupid enough to elect Obama in Nov' 08.

Man, your hate can be felt all the way here in Minnesota!

The world heaved a collective sigh of RELIEF when he was elected, son! Shit, he even got a Nobel...just for being someone other than a warmongering Conk killing (dark-skinned) kids in every other country!!

BTW, howdja like that schooling on history up there? Pulitzer, huh?

Well, if Obama can win a Nobel, you SURELY can win a Pulitzer for that drivel.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Man, your hate can be felt all the way here in Minnesota!

The world heaved a collective sigh of RELIEF when he was elected, son! Shit, he even got a Nobel...just for being someone other than a warmongering Conk killing (dark-skinned) kids in every other country!!

BTW, howdja like that schooling on history up there? Pulitzer, huh?

Well, if Obama can win a Nobel, you SURELY can win a Pulitzer for that drivel.

Love ya, Z!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Man, your hate can be felt all the way here in Minnesota!

The world heaved a collective sigh of RELIEF when he was elected, son! Shit, he even got a Nobel...just for being someone other than a warmongering Conk killing (dark-skinned) kids in every other country!!

BTW, howdja like that schooling on history up there? Pulitzer, huh?

Well, if Obama can win a Nobel, you SURELY can win a Pulitzer for that drivel.

Cap'n Cat wrote:No, the days under Carter were not "halcyon", IT, but nor were the days under Nixon, Ford and Reagan. He played with the cards he was dealt, much like Obama is doing right now. And Reagan's "accomplishments" were saccharin sweet, artificial and temporary, and were ultimately found to be unworkable and unsustainable. Trickle down, indeed.

You could argue that the economic impact of presidential policies and decisions aren't truly felt until 10+ years after they are instituted. What president was more responsible for the economic boom we experienced in the mid-late 90's? Clinton or Reagan? An argument could be made for Reagan and that Clinton was smart enough to ride the gravy train.

Cappy, for someone who is quick to hammer others for selling Jimmy short you're awfully quick to sell Ronnie short.

I for one appreciate the positive impact that both of them had on the U.S. If the U.S. had continued Carter's approach of calling for basic human rights in all nations regardless of whether they were friend or foe, we might not have as much of an Islamic fundamentalist mess as we have right now.

UNI88 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:No, the days under Carter were not "halcyon", IT, but nor were the days under Nixon, Ford and Reagan. He played with the cards he was dealt, much like Obama is doing right now. And Reagan's "accomplishments" were saccharin sweet, artificial and temporary, and were ultimately found to be unworkable and unsustainable. Trickle down, indeed.

You could argue that the economic impact of presidential policies and decisions aren't truly felt until 10+ years after they are instituted. What president was more responsible for the economic boom we experienced in the mid-late 90's? Clinton or Reagan? An argument could be made for Reagan and that Clinton was smart enough to ride the gravy train.

Cappy, for someone who is quick to hammer others for selling Jimmy short you're awfully quick to sell Ronnie short.

I for one appreciate the positive impact that both of them had on the U.S. If the U.S. had continued Carter's approach of calling for basic human rights in all nations regardless of whether they were friend or foe, we might not have as much of an Islamic fundamentalist mess as we have right now.

Fvck that! Reagan's shit cause the recession of true early 90's! Were you even born yet?

Hell, Bush couldn't run away from Reagan's shit fast enough!!

Read up on it, boy.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
You could argue that the economic impact of presidential policies and decisions aren't truly felt until 10+ years after they are instituted. What president was more responsible for the economic boom we experienced in the mid-late 90's? Clinton or Reagan? An argument could be made for Reagan and that Clinton was smart enough to ride the gravy train.

Cappy, for someone who is quick to hammer others for selling Jimmy short you're awfully quick to sell Ronnie short.

I for one appreciate the positive impact that both of them had on the U.S. If the U.S. had continued Carter's approach of calling for basic human rights in all nations regardless of whether they were friend or foe, we might not have as much of an Islamic fundamentalist mess as we have right now.

Fvck that! Reagan's **** cause the recession of true early 90's! Were you even born yet?

Hell, Bush couldn't run away from Reagan's **** fast enough!!

Read up on it, boy.

Cappy, I lived through it and have enough of an understanding of politics, economics, finance and business to be able to realize that in addition to the negatives, Reagan's policies had a lot of positive, long-term effects. I'm also objective enough to realize that the same could be said about Carter's policies.

Economics is cyclical, Presidents for the most part are just riding the waves. Their policies can make things slightly better or slightly worse but they're not going to change the fundamental nature of the cycles. The Fed has a greater short-term impact on the economy than the Executive Branch.

Who gives a flying fuck what some morons with different cultures and beliefs thinks about the US? That's problem with both our current President and current parents - the naive desire to be "liked".

It is not American nor parental to give a fuck if we are "liked", rather, we would be better served if we cared more about being "respected", or at a minimum, "feared".

We need to exit the UN, and quit funding their one-world government bullshit. I could not care less that my economic fortune is not "appropriately" shared with someone in a third world country.

Suck on that libtards.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Third decade? Ring a bell?

That's why I say it's mostly a Conk phenomenon. Old azzholes committing subterfuge to protect their old ways, thereby shitting on the little people and hindering progress

Tell me, if trickle down is soooo fvcking good, why are we in this alleged mess and, even after you blame Donks, why hasn't it relieved us of this latest quagmire???

Three decades is correct. Started with Z's hero, Ronald W. Reagan.

You responded to GF's entering the 3rd decade..

1st decade: 90s
2nd decade: 00s
3rd decade: 10s

Reagan wasn't in office in the 90s. I know its difficult for you to count past 3, but if you're going to refer to Reagan, it would be 4th decade.

BDKJMU wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Third decade? Ring a bell?

That's why I say it's mostly a Conk phenomenon. Old azzholes committing subterfuge to protect their old ways, thereby shitting on the little people and hindering progress

Tell me, if trickle down is soooo fvcking good, why are we in this alleged mess and, even after you blame Donks, why hasn't it relieved us of this latest quagmire???

Three decades is correct. Started with Z's hero, Ronald W. Reagan.

You responded to GF's entering the 3rd decade..

1st decade: 90s
2nd decade: 00s
3rd decade: 10s

Reagan wasn't in office in the 90s. I know its difficult for you to count past 3, but if you're going to refer to Reagan, it would be 4th decade.

All the worse, BODUNK!

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:Who gives a flying **** what some morons with different cultures and beliefs thinks about the US? That's problem with both our current President and current parents - the naive desire to be "liked".

It is not American nor parental to give a **** if we are "liked", rather, we would be better served if we cared more about being "respected", or at a minimum, "feared".

We need to exit the UN, and quit funding their one-world government bullshit. I could not care less that my economic fortune is not "appropriately" shared with someone in a third world country.

Suck on that libtards.

ugh...Thag no care what furners think....Thag smash their head with rock...

-
The world is laughing at Obama and his gang

Why can't dems pay their fair share?

Secret Service agents relieved of duty in Colombia amid alleged misconduct
CNN ^ | 4/14/12 | Dan Lothian


Secret Service agents sent to Colombia ahead of President Barack Obama were relieved of duty and returned home amid allegations of misconduct, a spokesman said.


One of the agents did not pay one of the prostitutes, and she complained to the police," Kessler said.

Calling it "clearly the biggest scandal in Secret Service history," Kessler said 12 agents are accused of involvement in the incident "in one degree or another," from allegedly interfering in the investigation to participating in other alleged misconduct.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------