Nightwing

"Dumbledore Calrissian" made that scene, as well as Dwight chewing on his binder pages.

Yeah, the site isn't all that honest. Looking at the Freep Article, ACORN isn't portrayed nearly as bad. And as noted above, they legally have to turn in all voter registrations, even flagging them and telling them beforehand. Plus, the website also has the wrong number of falsely registered people (They say 2,000 out of 5,000 were legal, but in the article only about 1,500 are fraudulent). Another fun thing is the New Mexico one, which the case was apparently dropped due to lack of evidence. Do you ever fucking fact check your sources, Marvin? Hell, one of the prosecutors in the Washington case outright said that it wasn't an attempt to influence an election, but just to get paid. And again, I point to the fact that they attempt to confirm all applications and flag bad ones. The problem is that, by law, they legally have to hand them all in, even if they know they are bad. I've never thought of ACORN having a specific party affiliation. I've just thought of them as being a negative presence in the U.S. election scene. If there's anything that we can't afford in a country that already has zero confidence in our political figures, it's a fraudulent election. If they're indeed required by law to submit 'bad' registrations, then let's change the law and move on with our lives. This is the kind of B.S. that detracts from campaigns, rather than focusing on actual policy ideals. They obviously have some organizational problems, this can't be denied. More accountability towards false applications is needed, along with a better system to make sure they actually go out and get good applications is needed. But the fact of the matter is, the "fraud" being decried here isn't done deliberately by the organization, and they seem to be picking it out themselves beforehand. They have to turn in all applications, no matter what is on them, by law. They aren't mentioning that these applications weren't just handed on, but were flagged for possible voter fraud beforehand. Republicans and idiots like Marvin are overstating something that isn't nearly as big a problem as they are making it out to be in an attempt to make this a "fraudulent election". No, I'd likely attack the Dems, too. Look at my posts earlier in the thread, and you'll see I did my fair share of defending John McCain. This is obviously a weak ploy using people's lack of knowledge of the electoral system to try and illegitimate a candidate, which is absolute bullshit. It's the same as the Michael Moore "Bush wasn't really elected" sort of bullshit. It deserves righteous indignation because it's manipulating what you were talking about: confidence in the electoral process. That hurts everyone for little gain in the long-term.

Certainly, but the winning goal was sloppiness. That was horrid.

Yeah, the site isn't all that honest. Looking at the Freep Article, ACORN isn't portrayed nearly as bad. And as noted above, they legally have to turn in all voter registrations, even flagging them and telling them beforehand. Plus, the website also has the wrong number of falsely registered people (They say 2,000 out of 5,000 were legal, but in the article only about 1,500 are fraudulent). Another fun thing is the New Mexico one, which the case was apparently dropped due to lack of evidence. Do you ever fucking fact check your sources, Marvin? Hell, one of the prosecutors in the Washington case outright said that it wasn't an attempt to influence an election, but just to get paid. And again, I point to the fact that they attempt to confirm all applications and flag bad ones. The problem is that, by law, they legally have to hand them all in, even if they know they are bad.

There have been volunteers of ACORN who have plead guilty and gone to jail for committing voter fraud. And its not just one or two random rogue volunteers either, so it seems like an issue they have. If they aren't encouraging it, they at least aren't doing much to stop it from happening. But hey, its low income discrimination to say ACORN is committing voter fraud. Please, Mr. Hardy Boy, how did you break the case in the "Mystery of the Bad Nut", when so many others apparently haven't? What's your proof? Nice job there, Sherlock.

And I don't think it's "leading down the path", you retard. Acting like this is the first step to a socialist takeover (Which you're implying) is fucking moronic, since this is obviously a temporary measure and people are pissed off as it is with the entire situation. The only reason they let this go was due to how horrifyingly bad it would be if the company went under. Funny, I thought Glenn Beck did all your thinking.

The new Indy film was an okay film, so while it was a little funny, watching a grown man get raped was a little bit too much. I thought Hillbilly Lucas looked funny as hell, though. I liked a lot of the China stuff, but it just wasn't the focus of the episode. The ridiculous stereotyping, Butters shooting guys in the balls, and the whole Olympics flashback worked. I was honestly waiting for Cartman to be right, but the whole thing felt a bit tacked on to the episode.

Their passing was horrendous. I can't believe they came out of camp like that. Hopefully this won't be an indicator of things to come. The Leafs played a lot like Chicago did last year; fast, hard, and opportunistic. Good game.

the US Government now has a vested interest in the Mortgage Industry, and there are talks of the Government buying into banks in the next few weeks. If you dont see that as leading down the path to socialism, then I guess we just wait til they offer to buy some other industry up. You realize having a "vested interest" is not socializing an industry? If we were socializing an industry, there wouldn't be any other companies. Plus, socializing something is sort of permanent, something this isn't. That's the definition of all his posts.

I was 2 years off..you knew what I meant anyway. I can't make this up.

John Adams was feeling charitable and only decided to carry out 3 years out of the 4 year term.

I was joking, people. But in all honesty, part of me does want to see him pull "Mr. Secessionist" on "Mrs. America" here. I can't believe how much I loathe her now. Her voice, her views, her stupid empty grin... God, she is all that is wrong with politics, written onto a single stuffed blouse.

Oh, come on. You take all the fun out of it. I simply feel Obama should start running ads about Palin's husband (You know, the aforementioned secessionist), her "Holy Warrior Jesus!" Church, and Witch Hunters who have blessed the governor. It's a fight I'd openly welcome.

"Joe Biden got increasingly frustrated with Republican negotiations regarding the VP debate, saying there was 'no way' he'd commit to a 'swimsuit competition'."

I get that they are trying to use the "guilt by association" tactic on Hannity but its totally not the same. 20 years of association with several shady characters > 5 minutes with someone on a tv show Haven't we already gone over Sarah Palin's crazy preacher yet? Or how her husband is/was (I can't remember which) a member of the Alaskan Secession Party? Or how McCain has actually been a part of a corruption scandal with the Keating 5? Seriously, how does Sarah Palin get a pass on this? Or is it just because she's equally crazy that you don't notice it? Sarah Palin's church has a Kenyan Witch...hunter as a guest for one day < 20 years of Rev. Wright Again, I dont see how the two compare. Are you fucking kidding me? Belonging to a church that has a witch hunter as a guest far worse than Wright. Wright, to quote Mike Huckabee, has a chip on his shoulder. And there is certainly some justification in his sentiment. I can understand that. Inviting a fucking witch hunter in your church? You're fucking insane. Oh, by the by, I wasn't talking just about that, but actually referencing the fact that Palin's preachers thinks that the War on Terror is a holy war endorsed by God. I can deal with people having a problem with America; with Wright, I can completely understand where it comes from. At the very least, Barack Obama has shown me that he loves his country and has its best interests at heart, despite having such a preacher. Sarah Palin's preacher talks of a holy war against terrorists. To me, that directly effects policy decisions and international relations. That worries me a hell of a lot more than anything Wright has ever said. Here, let's take a look at this fun quote from Sarah Palin's former longtime pastor Yeah, saying Jesus is calling on us to give up our lives in a holy war is totally not as bad as being angry at America. Totally. Another fun fact, which I thank CNN for revealing to me: Anyone know where the "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity" quote from her convention speech came from? This guy. Wow, that's a real All-American writer to me! Edit: I'd also like to point out that Hannity completely ignores the fact that the commission Obama shares with this guy has a Republican. omg terrorist supporter... or maybe it proves he's truly a man who works across party lines!

I get that they are trying to use the "guilt by association" tactic on Hannity but its totally not the same. 20 years of association with several shady characters > 5 minutes with someone on a tv show Haven't we already gone over Sarah Palin's crazy preacher yet? Or how her husband is/was (I can't remember which) a member of the Alaskan Secession Party? Or how McCain has actually been a part of a corruption scandal with the Keating 5? Seriously, how does Sarah Palin get a pass on this? Or is it just because she's equally crazy that you don't notice it?

There's something funny in watching Marvin completely ignore reality to try and barely make a semblance of a point. Obama can associate himself with shady characters freely with no pressure on him to admit or defend his associations with them, but Hannity has one guy on his show that has made anti-semitic remarks in the past (not on his show though) and now Hannity has to defend himself against being called an anti-semite himself. OK then...theres no real difference between the two at all. Seriously, you're just trying too hard now.

There's something funny in watching Marvin completely ignore reality to try and barely make a semblance of a point.

No, you're the one who completely misrepresented the statement by making a completely obtuse comment about how Obama is also rich (But not nearly as rich as Romney, of course). That wasn't the point; Obama isn't nearly as rich as Romney, doesn't come from a rich background (Which Romney does), and didn't gain all his wealth as a corporate CEO. Their situations are completely different, but you don't seem to understand that in the slightest. I understand completely that there were a variety of factors involved in this whole economic crisis. But right now, both parties have agreed that corporate greed has played a part of it and talk about it constantly. Having a former CEO going up to the podium to preach the values of deregulation and universal tax cuts is not going to play well with people. It doesn't help that deregulation and a lack of oversight is another reason why we got here. Frankly, I'd just rather they realize that he's a flip-flopping political opportunist whose amazing ability to tow the Republican line to absurd levels is simply not very "leader-like". And I think the people realized that in the primaries, but you haven't come to grips with that reality yet. I'm sorry that you want to be Lois Lane to his Supermormon, but he's not going to save the day. Hell, he couldn't even save his own campaign; how the hell is he supposed to save the economy?

Well heres a newsflash then, I think that last statement disqualifies Obama as well. Obama's certainly not near Romneys $200 million plus net worth, but he has more money than most average "struggling" Americans will ever see in their lifetime just the same. Maybe we should go to D.C. and pick up the first homeless person we see on the street and have them run for President since you seem to think that Americans want to hear from people who have struggled during the downturn in the economy. You just destroyed your own point. It's not that they don't make as much money as Obama. It's that Romney is obscenely rich, and he gained that money as the CEO of a major corporation. It's been universally touted that this crisis was basically caused by "Corporate Greed". It's the Republican line to fix the economy with "universal tax cuts and deregulation". Now let's put that all together in one sentence: It's an obscenely rich former CEO telling us to solve a problem caused by corporate greed with "universal tax cuts and deregulation". ... Actually, can anyone else simplify this even more for Marvin, because I still think I'm talking over his head.

To be fair, I've always been a moderate, with most of my conservative beliefs focused on foreign policy; I'm sort of a 90's Democrat, back when we used to intervene in things rather than just let genocides happen. After 2003, I was suddenly staring on the outside of the party office looking in. I've just gotten tired of McCain's pandering to the Republican base. Obama's foreign policy plan has me much more at ease than I thought it would months ago, and with the economy like it is, I'm up for regulation, which is not what McCain is pitching. When I was defending McCain, I was doing so because I thought he'd be a helluva lot more moderate than he is today. Palin was just the last straw for that; I've just never been so insulted by a Vice Presidential choice in my life. She's is the most vapid, unappealing person I've ever seen, and the fact that she's a step away from the Presidency (Behind a guy as old as McCain, no less) has pushed me back towards Obama in a big way. Plus, it's Marvin. I mean, who doesn't seem a bit more to the left when they're deconstructing him.

Ahahahahahahahaha... God, that's hilarious. Romney would have been out of this race in August with his insane pandering to the Republican base. Don't you remember "Double the size of Gitmo"? His flip-fop on social values, combined with his continued support of almost a straight Republican line would have been suicide. The Republican base has been shrinking for a while now, and Romney couldn't possibly bring in more independents than McCain does. It's the only reason the Republicans are still in this race. AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA Yes, those companies would have magically generated profits somehow if Romney was on the table. I don't care what the mods think, but you really are retarded. I can't believe you'd even entertain that idea to yourself. And Romney wouldn't do better on the economy than McCain, because they are pitching the same plan: tax cuts and deregulation. You think people are going to be hot on a former CEO telling them how to solve a problem which everyone has been saying was caused by "Corporate Greed"? And that the solution is to "let them regulate themselves"? Ahahahahahahahaha...

The "that one" moment was when he was talking about the energy bill Bush/Cheney put up in the Senate. He said "You want to know who voted for that bill? Well, this is ironic; that one *points at Obama*." I agree, it's not a big moment to me. I still think McCain is the best candidate the Republicans could have gotten out of their party. McCain's the only one who, right now, would have any hope in hell of coming close to Obama.

Well, I was still laughing at McCain's claim that we can take care of them all at the same time. By saying "Education" instead of "Entitlements", I think you answered your own question as to how he prioritizes it.

Holy shit, has anyone checked out Pollster's front page recently?