Game Over, Man!


Bill Paxton in “Aliens” (1986)

Santorum: ‘Game over’ if Obama wins again

At a campaign event for Iowa Rep. Steve King (R), former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum warned that the United States was “over” if President Barack Obama was re-elected in November.

“This is your moment. We lose — Steve King will tell you — we lose, and Obamacare implemented, it’s over. Hate to be that stark, but it’s over,” he said.

“We will no longer hear a candidate get up and talk about 47 percent of the people in a moment when no one was supposedly recording,” Santorum continued, alluding to a video of Romney describing nearly half of Americans as government-dependent victims who didn’t take responsibility for themselves. “Because everyone will be dependent upon government benefits. When that happens — our Founders pleaded and warned us against that — when that happens, game not on, but game over.”

  1. #1 by cav on October 21, 2012 - 5:30 pm

  2. #2 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 21, 2012 - 6:06 pm

    The world surely isn’t going to pay when America is on welfare, as the military power and it’s effective use crash, no one will take the dollar for anything, and away we’ll go.

    Right now the US dollar is backed up by the promise of Death. If you don’t take our out of thin air money for whatever we want, you must be a terrorist and we’ll kill ya.

    That’s it in a nutshell, bama or bush, same story.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on October 21, 2012 - 8:15 pm

    I didn’t realize Bill Paxton played a roll in one of my favorite movies.

    I never saw more then a couple of the HBO Mormon series – which was great – , but I loved his portrayal in “A Simple Plan”.

  4. #4 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 10:20 am

    If you’re at all interested in raising a stink, here’s a site with some guidance:

    http://www.ourfuture.org/nocuts

  5. #5 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 2:54 pm

    That “our future” site must be ironically named. I assume Greece has the same one.

    It completely ignores the arithmetic of Social Security and Medicare and completely ignores the problem with the tax code. It is fist pounding for the uneducated, which doesn’t solve any problems.

    Just ask Tim “we don’t have a solution” Geithner.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 3:52 pm

    Let’s be honest. Bowles-Simpson is all about pissing on the middle class and telling us it’s raining!

  7. #7 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 4:04 pm

    Let’s be honest, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    “The Bowles-Simpson proposal is indeed an across-the-board tax increase– and a fairly progressive one at that. In 2015, the lowest earners would face an average cut in their after-tax income of 3.4 percent or about $400. Middle-income households (those earning an average of about $60,000) would see their after-tax incomes fall by 4 percent or about $1,900. On the other end of the economic food chain, the top one percent of earners (who earn an average of about $2 million) would lose about $77,000 (5.3 percent) while the top 0.1 percent would see their after-tax incomes cut by nearly 8 percent, or close to $500,000.”

    http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/11/16/bowles-simpson-deficit-plan-would-hike-taxes-across-the-board/

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 4:31 pm

    People are afraid that the Dems are getting ready to give away the store on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    Dean Baker:

    Reporters have a chance to do their job and ask President Obama and his spokespeople a real question whose answer will have real meaning to tens of millions voters: “Do you support the Bowles-Simpson cuts to Social Security?”

    No one should have to go the polls this fall not knowing whether or not President Obama wants to cut Social Security. If reporters were treated like school teachers, and tens of millions of voters go to the polls not knowing the answer to this question, then they would all be fired.

  9. #9 by brewski on October 22, 2012 - 5:02 pm

    Dean “we can be just like Greece” Baker

  10. #10 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 5:12 pm

    Former CBS newsman Dan Rather warnedFacebook fans of his show on axs.tv that Mitt Romney could conceivably take Ohio, particularly since the state is controlled by Republicans.
    “Keep in mind: The whole upper tier of Ohio state government is in the hands of the GOP now,” Rather explained in a Facebook post this morning. “In very close voting they have the power to influence what votes are counted and how.”
    Rather warned, “Remember Ohio, Bush v. Kerry in 2004 and Florida, Bush v. Gore in 2000.” . . . . . .

    You said it, Mr. Rather. These fuckers can’t abide an HONEST election.

  11. #11 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 5:30 pm

    If you last the entire debate without hurling or getting shit-face playing drinking games, there’s a rainbow unicorn pony as a prize. Allow two to four weeks shipping.

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on October 22, 2012 - 5:50 pm

    I hope Michael Moore’s next movie is about election fraud. This is getting ridiculous. I mean the republicans are right out there SAYING they’re going to steal the election, and the Republican candidate’s son has bought voting machines.

    The media should be ashamed, but they only seem proud that it has come to this.

    Thank you Mr. – I got fired for telling the truth – Rather!

  13. #13 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 6:08 pm

    Drinking games:

    if you want to stay sober the words are: peace, climate change, gitmo, wiretapping Americans, military contractors, Bradley Manning, civil liberties, drones, hungry children, failed war on drugs, KBR, prosecute war criminals.

    to get drunk: China, Iran, Libya, Benghazi, Israel, Bibi, Afghanistan, foreign debt, foreign oil, Nukes.

  14. #14 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 7:07 pm

    romney in the debate

    “We can’t kill our way out of this problem”.

    A promising answer.

  15. #15 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 8:35 pm

    Crippling sanctions are another matter though.

  16. #16 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 8:38 pm

    Neocon happyland – here we come – again.

  17. #17 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 8:42 pm

    Did we ever leave? obama patently lies about the situation in Iraq, and now collusion in israel and turkey discussing entering the Syrian civil war for their own and our reasons.

    The active destabilization of the region to spread chaos and death to facilitate favorable regime change even if it is Jihadi! JTFC! It cannot end well.

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on October 22, 2012 - 8:53 pm

    glenn/whoever:

    You DID notice that Romney utterly supports the use of drones, didn’t you? So I guess you’re going to stop using that against Obama, right?

  19. #19 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 9:12 pm

    Romney’s not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. However, he’s got the Iraq brain trust advising him on foreign policy. I see you Dan Senor.

  20. #20 by Richard Warnick on October 22, 2012 - 9:14 pm

    Larry–

    With regard to the latest voting-machine conspiracy theory, see my comment today on another thread.

  21. #21 by Larry Bergan on October 22, 2012 - 10:06 pm

    Well, Richard, there are conspiracies and there are facts. One of the memes used by the voting machine conspirators is that the people who don’t trust them are preventing voter turnout. That may be true to an extent, but what else are we supposed to do?

    Your trust in the machines is puzzling.

    Always has been.

  22. #22 by cav on October 22, 2012 - 10:22 pm

    Go to the pols, if you don’t do mail-in balloting and ask for a paper ballot. Simple. They are required to accommodate you and they will as long as the paper ballots last.

    These machines are merely a ‘quick’, ‘modern’ mandated ‘convenience’. They have not entirely precluded the paper ballot.

  23. #23 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 22, 2012 - 10:58 pm

    you will protest romney is the point, you will be compelled..

  24. #24 by Larry Bergan on October 22, 2012 - 11:03 pm

    I have always requested a paper ballot to vote on since 2000, except for the time I took my camera in to try and catch the voting machine doing something nefarious.

    If Sherrie Swensen is counting your mail-in, provisional, or requested paper ballot, you probably didn’t waste your time in showing up to vote.

    Otherwise…

  25. #25 by Larry Bergan on October 22, 2012 - 11:07 pm

    George Carlin:

    I’m getting too old for this. I’m no Daniel Ellsberg.

  26. #26 by cav on October 23, 2012 - 7:29 am

    “Governor, you’re saying the same things as us, but you’d say them louder,” said Obama. It was a good line. The trouble was it condemned them both.”

  27. #27 by Larry Bergan on October 23, 2012 - 3:21 pm

    Richard:

    I owe you a huge apology!

    It was probably past by bedtime and I blew right by you saying you might support getting rid of the machines. Whenever I heard the words “conspiracy theory” in conjunction with concerns about the voting machines, my lizard brain kicks in. Your quote from Aviva Shen dredged up memories of people I considered to be trolls who were commenting on BradBlog and saying the same thing, trying to discourage us from informing people about the dangers of the machines.

    My belief that you trusted the machines, somewhat, probably came from a comment you made years ago on one of my posts. Every time I do a post against the voting machines, there is mostly silence here.

  28. #28 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2012 - 3:42 pm

    I’ve often been skeptical of e-voting. Check out this post from 2008: NH Primary Recount Starts Tomorrow.

    On the thread you referred to, I said I was in favor of a bill that would have required a voter-verified permanent paper ballot for all federal elections.

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on October 23, 2012 - 4:59 pm

    I was a great fan of Rush Holt for being the only other politician, besides Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean who EVER brought the dangers of the machines forward, but then his bill got watered down to the point that there was even greater danger to our voting system. That’s what my post was about and Mark Crispin Miller made the point wonderfully in the interview on the post. Amazingly, it’s still available, (a little past halfway into the radio show).

    I think most of us who fought the battle to have the machines audited, or demand other safeguards involved with them have decided to throw them out in favor of hand-marked, hand-counted elections.

    Whenever complexity is introduced into politics, it is used to the advantage of those who would trick us, and computers are exactly the wrong ticket here.

  30. #30 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 5:05 pm

    I always loved Vegas. Here is the prediction from the best Vegas political odds maker. Concur.

    http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-06-22/las-vegas-oddsmaker-predicts-obama-will-have-landslide-loss#

    Here’s the call from bookies in Britain.

    http://www.lvrj.com/business/william-hill-drops-odds-on-romney-presidential-chances-172744861.html

    I have predicted a projectile vomiting of this president from office, and that a manikin in a cheap suit could defeat him. It’s in the record, and the manikin thing looks like its gonna happen.

  31. #31 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2012 - 5:11 pm

    The bookies have got it wrong. Nate Silver is the guy who gets it right every time. Currently, it’s 70-30 Obama-Romney.

  32. #32 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 5:13 pm

    Larry the machines are incidental, like the old saying goes, “if voting changed anything, it would be made illegal”.

    The older I get the more I think the best form of government is benign dictatorship. What we have is malignant dictatorship in our presidency.

  33. #33 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 5:16 pm

    Wishful thinking.

    what is simply amazing is how much of a total failure this president is given the standing coming in all of congress, the good will of the People.

    Now the bookies have him trailing to romney, he can’t even make odds. It’s fuckin’ hilarious!!

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2012 - 5:19 pm

    Place your bet with the bookies, if you want. But you will lose.

  35. #35 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 5:21 pm

    So you say, and we will see.

    however it goes, truly amazing, there won’t be any “mandate” , it’s uh gonna be “fractious”

    http://news.yahoo.com/romney-ekes-bragging-rights-210012699–abc-news-politics.html

  36. #36 by Larry Bergan on October 23, 2012 - 5:37 pm

    George Calin/glenn, whoever:

    I’m surprised you have thrown the full weight of your support behind Romney. You have been become known for your “they’re all the same” stance for years. You must be an anonymous Mormon.

    Maybe you couldn’t throw your support to Bush because he couldn’t speak English or form a sentence and that may be why Romney is pained to utter his name unless asked, specifically, in a debate.

    I’ll admit, Mitt CAN form a sentence AND speak in English – HELL, even in French, (in Chinese for all we know). – The fact that you’re not embarrassed about his hypocrisy and shape shifting…

    Hmmm.

  37. #37 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2012 - 5:42 pm

    Josh Marshall: Don’t Believe the Hype

  38. #38 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 5:44 pm

    No, it is the only way I can get you off your lazy ass and start protesting murder again.

    We have no other hope if we re-elect the killer that you will not protest against, as he has plied you with his Kool Aid.

    Best way to end this is make American progressives SUFFER!

  39. #39 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 5:50 pm

    Perhaps mitt can motivate a bit more passion concerning the acceptance of murderous policies as he norm, along with destruction of the Constitution.

    Perhaps all you need to get you going is to have a president who could even be a greater murderer than the man you yet support. If you’re going to murder, may as well not dance about the issue, eh Larry? Maybe we need to see just what it is you supported a bit more violently, and bit more filmed up in the media as I am sure it will become, once romney becomes president.

  40. #40 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 23, 2012 - 6:00 pm

    The very fact such an article is around at this late date spells doom for the president, there is only more time to review his failures..

    ….given what he was supposed to do, and the errors in policy he willfully chose to continue, it’s a far cry from the narrative of the African Prince portrayed by members of the Cult of Personality once the chosen one was anointed president.

    Let the stones be cast, all hail Caesar…

  41. #41 by Richard Warnick on October 23, 2012 - 7:32 pm

    Larry–

    Tonight on MSNBC, Ed Schultz asked his frequent guest, Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, about the Tagg Romney voting machine conspiracy theory.

    Turner’s been fighting voter suppression efforts in Ohio all year, and helped get rid of those Clear Channel billboards.

    She told Ed she has looked into the e-voting controversy, which involves a tenuous connection between the Romney family and a company that made the voting machines used in two Ohio counties. There is only “the appearance of impropriety,” she says.

  42. #42 by brewski on October 23, 2012 - 8:08 pm

    Why anyone would ever watch Ed Schultz I will never know.

  43. #43 by cav on October 24, 2012 - 9:50 am

  44. #44 by Richard Warnick on October 24, 2012 - 10:26 am

    Ed Schultz did live broadcasts from the Wisconsin State Capitol during the people’s uprising there. More recently, he did a show from Freeport, Illinois, where workers are protesting Bain Capital for sending their jobs to China.

    I remember when candidate Obama said he would put on a pair of comfortable shoes and walk a picket line to support the American middle class. He never did, but Ed Schultz does.

  45. #45 by cav on October 24, 2012 - 10:41 am

    Ed Schultz doesn’t have all of the stresses of the present day ‘decider’, and Obama thinks that by simply making a sympathetic utterance, that’s weighing in in a ‘most effective’ manner possible for him given his busy schedule saving the world from terrorist and all.

    There’s a reality in there somewhere, I suppose. But when Ed shows up on site like he does, my regard for him truly elevates. Obama really ought to try going to the site instead of more meetings with whose who would see him fail.

  46. #46 by brewski on October 24, 2012 - 11:16 am

    The people’s uprising? You mean the white yuppie failed violent attempt at a power grab over the taxpayers, farmers, workers, children and people of color? Ed’s live broadcasts were shameless publicity stunts to save his minuscule ratings.

    On March 9, 2012, Politico reported that Schultz had received nearly $200,000 in speaking fees and advertisement charges from labor unions without publicly disclosing this income, a potential conflict of interest for his television show. – wikipedia

  47. #47 by Richard Warnick on October 24, 2012 - 12:01 pm

    Oh, come on. Schultz is a political commentator. He also has a radio show. How can he have a conflict of interest?

  48. #48 by brewski on October 24, 2012 - 2:23 pm

    So if Rush was on the payroll for Exxon and didn’t disclose that, you’d be fine with that.

  49. #49 by Richard Warnick on October 24, 2012 - 2:50 pm

    You seem to be implying there is some kind of scandal or illegality where it doesn’t exist.

  50. #50 by brewski on October 24, 2012 - 3:11 pm

    Taking cash from unions, not disclosing it, then using his paid commentator position to promote thugs, i mean unions, is nothing if not at least unethical.

  51. #51 by Richard Warnick on October 24, 2012 - 3:18 pm

    I assume you’re referring to speaking fees. Look, Ed Schultz says what he believes. He’s not like Glenn Beck, for example, who believes in climate science but is paid to lie about it in public.

  52. #52 by brewski on October 24, 2012 - 4:22 pm

    It is unethical for someone in his position to take cash from unions, go around promoting unions on the publicly owned and subsidized airways, and not disclose it. Clearly an unethical conflict of interest.

  53. #53 by Richard Warnick on October 24, 2012 - 4:26 pm

    It’s hardly a revelation that Ed Schultz likes unions. I’m still waiting to learn about this supposed “conflict of interest.”

  54. #54 by cav on October 24, 2012 - 5:11 pm

    Chicken?Egg?

  55. #55 by Larry Bergan on October 24, 2012 - 5:34 pm

    Richard:

    From the article you linked to earlier:

    If they could simply flip a switch on a machine to negate a voter’s choice, there would be no reason to push voter ID laws, purge voter rolls, disseminate misleading information, or threaten to fire employees if they don’t vote for Romney.

    I can’t figure out why talking about the dangers of the machines is off limits to ALL media including 99% of the internet news sites. It’s just something we don’t discuss, but it’s the elephant in the living room.

    The article brings up all of the other ways the republicans are rigging the election, so why wouldn’t they flip a switch on the machines. In fact you may know that by some miracle, there was an audit done in a recent Florida election where the election results had been literally flipped.

    Then you’ve got the famous video of Clint Curtis testifying, under oath, in a courtroom that he was asked to create vote flipping software by an elected official, voting machines all over the country coming up with more votes then registered voters, ect, ect, ect…

    Yet we’re supposed to shut up and blame every single instance of machine failure on human failure and hope it gets better next time.

    For heck sakes, the reason Al Gore called Bush to take back his concession was because a computer in Florida came up with many thousands of negative votes for him – not just 0 votes, but negative votes. Trying to find information on that story is like chasing a piece of paper in a hurricane.

    It’s simply not talked about. I don’t even care if the story about Mitt’s son turns out to be fluff; what about the volume of other proven dangers.

  56. #56 by cav on October 24, 2012 - 5:42 pm

    voting machines don’t spoil elections in much the same way guns don’t kill people.

    There’s a driver on those buses – a moral hi-jacker, a sociopath.

  57. #57 by Larry Bergan on October 24, 2012 - 6:13 pm

    cav:

    You shouldn’t talk about Karl Rove that way. :)

    I hate to only mention Karl. He has LOTS of help, including people in Utah.

    Poor Brad Friedman has had to battle Daily KOS in the past and now Talking Points Memo. I know he hates this, but he gets better at his craft – journalism – all the time.

  58. #58 by Richard Warnick on October 25, 2012 - 9:21 am

    I had not heard the Al Gore “negative votes” story before. What is the source for that?

    I think some of the e-voting anomalies are the result of intentional acts. The news media ought to pay closer attention. But stuff like “Tagg Romney owns the Ohio voting machines” that turns out to be hype does not help the credibility of e-voting watchdogs.

  59. #59 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 25, 2012 - 10:09 am

    The last time elections were fair was when Romans ran them, those permitted to vote entered a circle of armed Legionnaires, the voter had a single rock. Under the eye of the guards he was allowed to place the rock, and but 1, under fear of the sword, in one pile or the other representing one side of a issue or one man or the other. Mostly the rocks were never counted, just looked at the piles. The stones were of uniform size.

    Cheating was punishable by death.

  60. #60 by cav on October 25, 2012 - 10:18 am

    Bits and bytes on a counting chip.

    Miniaturization v actual number of participants isn’t much to cringe over. The absence of the death penalty however, is. Removing the penalties for cheating, replacing them with a wrist-slap or even some twisted ‘patriotic’ nonsensical support, has made mockery of the democratic process.

  61. #61 by the Ghost of George Carlin on October 25, 2012 - 11:04 am

    For the record so it cannot be claimed again, this JackWagon of a president has sent troops back to Iraq, and really they never did leave. M’kay Gauleiter Larry?

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/13000-us-troops-deployed-in-iraq-again

  62. #62 by Richard Warnick on October 25, 2012 - 11:51 am

    Special for Glenn: Gamblers betting on Obama.

    As of this writing, betting at the three biggest prediction markets is as follows: Betfair has Obama with a 64 percent chance to win to Romney’s 36 percent; Intrade has the president at 58 percent; and the Iowa Electronic Markets have the president at 59 percent. Oddschecker shows bookmakers to be even more bullish on Obama.

    Why are the polls and gamblers so far apart?

    “The answer highlights one of the main differences between the polls and markets like Intrade,” Intrade’s exchange operations manager Carl Wolfenden told me. “The polls ask who you’re going to vote for — a question that requires an emotional response. Intrade asks who you think will win — a rational question that requires someone to look at the facts and real world events, such as polls, debates, speeches, gaffes, scandals and crises. One of these facts is the Electoral College, which isn’t accounted for in polls.”

    Why the big lead for Obama?

    “Our markets recognize that Romney probably needs to win Ohio to beat Obama,” Wolfenden says. “And so the price for Obama to be reelected has closely tracked his probability of winning Ohio. So while Romney may lead in the polls, and he may have flipped a number of other key states — such as Florida, Virginia, Colorado — to his side of the ledger, our markets appear to believe that without Ohio he can’t get it done.”

    My favorite forecaster, Nate Silver, gives President Obama a 71% chance of winning, up 5.3% since October 17.

  63. #63 by Larry Bergan on October 25, 2012 - 6:36 pm

    Richard said:

    I had not heard the Al Gore “negative votes” story before. What is the source for that?

    Comes in the first 2 minutes of the Emmy Award nominated “Hacking Democracy” documentary:

    I’ve only read once that this was the reason Al Gore un-conceded, but, like I said, it’s impossible to find information that puts aspersions on the machines.

    Please take the time to watch the entire movie. This is important!

  64. #64 by Richard Warnick on October 26, 2012 - 9:04 am

    Can you post Season 2 of “Game of Thrones”? Just kidding. :-)

  65. #65 by Larry Bergan on October 26, 2012 - 5:21 pm

    When the official story tells us that the election came down to 537 votes, without mentioning the 16,000 votes lost on a machine, I think that’s a pretty serious matter, but apparently nobody cares.

    I have the right to sulk.

  66. #66 by Larry Bergan on October 26, 2012 - 5:23 pm

    Actually, it was more then 16,000 votes because that doesn’t take into account the people who voted FOR gore on that machine. There had to some, wouldn’t you think?

    I know. This is really boring.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: