jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Just out of curiosity, if he wasn't going to say the N word, what was he going to say? Maybe there's another way to interpret it, but I haven't seen any. I know jh says it was made up or misinterpreted, but what then is the correct interpretation?

Any word (or in the case of nik, suffix) that begins with the letter N. He spoke off the cuff for the entire campaign, and changing directions in the middle of a thought was the rule not the exception. In the minute before the clip td posted, he randomly stops in the middle of another word (ethnicity) and accidentally says Ovama instead of Obama. In the minute afterwards he has a long pause before going into a digression about the defense budget (repeating the phrase "the defense budget" three times in the same sentence as he collects his thoughts), and stops himself halfway through saying 'which' to say 'that'. The average Santorum speech, in his zeal to prove himself the authentic anti-Romney and anti-Obama candidate, was a stuttering mess. Him saying something and stopping isn't evidence that he was about to say something offensive. Operating from that assumption and extrapolating his stutter to mean he was going to drop the N word seems tremendously off target to me.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm not sure how you heard that from what I said. I REALLY don't think the last consonant was a "k" sound. I would say I'm 99.9% positive it was a "g" sound. I don't know any other words that would fit given what I hear. I was looking for a reasonable explanation. I get that he stumbles on his words a lot and I actually applaud him for speaking without a script. Of course, when you go without a script, sometimes things slip out that you would prefer not to say in public. Given that I think he said "nig," the fact that he stumbled right afterwards makes sense to me. I'm not going in the other direction where I heard him stumble and therefore think he said nig. Whatever word he was going to say, it started with ni and then a hard consonant. There aren't too many words that fit in that sentence and start that way. That's why I asked for an alternative explanation. I can't think of one.

Anyway, it's kinda a mute point at the moment.

negotiator

If Santorum' were one of those self-immolating tibetan monks he'd be the one to assume his lotus position with a wet book of matches

How about those fucktards at McCain's district town halls? Seems like he has, and displayed, more justifiable contempt for them than he has for Chuck Hagel

bleh wrote:negotiator

anti-war government negotiator?

Maybe.

btw, I like how he says "anti-war" with such disdain, as if being against war is some kind of character flaw.

anyway, like I said, it's pretty much a moot point. If he runs again, then it may become something to look at.

Youseff wrote:is Rick "Obama [is an] anti-war, Government Nig-" Santorum really going to run again? lovely party the GOP has got there.

One person's decision to run doesn't reflect on the party. Would it make any sense to say "John Edwards is really going to run again? Lovely party the Dems have there?"

sexual deviants are on both sides of the aisle (more closet cases on the Right for obvious reasons).

You guys are mean for making jh defend Pope Frothy.

Meanwhile, anyone read the Robert Draper piece in last Sunday's NYT magazine? I give him an A for reporting but a low D for analysis... curious what others think.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:There's definitely a "g" sound on the end, not a "k" sound, at least to my ears. I listened about 5 times. There also seems to be too long of a pause for it to be part of the word government that comes before it. He also seemed to get a little flustered, which I don't think he would be if he was just using a tea party word.

As I said initially, I understand where that interpretation comes from, and it might be right. I just hear more of a "k" sound. He definitely stumbled over whatever he was trying to say, and I don't know why you'd assign an ulterior motive to that.

Youseff wrote:http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 12m&cmpt=q

I said that it didn't make sense. I'm not sure what a Google trend would prove or disprove.

Yeah, I mean, what sense does government nig make anyway? And what purpose would Santorum have in using the word? Unless we think he uses it so often that it just slips out? To my mind he's so repressed, though, that he would stumble over the word pee-pee or bitch, I can't see him singing N words around. Governmentnik at least makes a little sense. Government nickle, government needing-there are other possibilities, but what's clear is that he lost his train of thought making it unclear what he was trying to express. When so many of his clear stated opinions are so offensive , dangerous or laughable, why go after a soundbite like this, not to mention it's on the same level as accusing Obama of not knowing how many states there are.

This is way, way, way down on the list of things not to like about Rick Santorum.

But this is the Internet, where we never pass up a chance to argue semantics.

swishnicholson wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:There's definitely a "g" sound on the end, not a "k" sound, at least to my ears. I listened about 5 times. There also seems to be too long of a pause for it to be part of the word government that comes before it. He also seemed to get a little flustered, which I don't think he would be if he was just using a tea party word.

As I said initially, I understand where that interpretation comes from, and it might be right. I just hear more of a "k" sound. He definitely stumbled over whatever he was trying to say, and I don't know why you'd assign an ulterior motive to that.

Youseff wrote:http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 12m&cmpt=q

I said that it didn't make sense. I'm not sure what a Google trend would prove or disprove.

Yeah, I mean, what sense does government nig make anyway? And what purpose would Santorum have in using the word? Unless we think he uses it so often that it just slips out? To my mind he's so repressed, though, that he would stumble over the word pee-pee or bitch, I can't see him singing N words around. Governmentnik at least makes a little sense. Government nickle, government needing-there are other possibilities, but what's clear is that he lost his train of thought making it unclear what he was trying to express. When so many of his clear stated opinions are so offensive , dangerous or laughable, why go after a soundbite like this, not to mention it's on the same level as accusing Obama of not knowing how many states there are.

I find Santorum repulsive. I'm also certain that Swish has diagnosed this issue 100% accurately.

I suppose it's possible he was accidentally saying a word that doesn't exist like you guys are saying but couple this with the "blaah people" and I'm thinking Occam's Razor points to nigger here.

dajafi wrote:You guys are mean for making jh defend Pope Frothy.

Meanwhile, anyone read the Robert Draper piece in last Sunday's NYT magazine? I give him an A for reporting but a low D for analysis... curious what others think.

had not done, but have done now. I'm always a little leery of tales told by a chap trafficking in unnamed & unnameable "young party insiders".

I liked this comment:

I'm an Marine veteran, own guns and bows, a truck, a dog, live in the country.
I didn't leave the Republicans, they left me.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:You guys are mean for making jh defend Pope Frothy.

Meanwhile, anyone read the Robert Draper piece in last Sunday's NYT magazine? I give him an A for reporting but a low D for analysis... curious what others think.

had not done, but have done now. I'm always a little leery of tales told by a chap trafficking in unnamed & unnameable "young party insiders".

Fair enough, though enough folks did go on record, including ones who presumably want to make money off Republicans through provision of goods and services, that I think it's fair to take his basic findings as valid.

I just thought he kind of conflated the medium with the message. He started by talking about how the Obamans ran circles around the Romneyites technology-wise, then essentially made the case that the best tech imaginable wouldn't have really helped since many/most voters reachable via the tech are fundamentally turned off by the Republicans' message.

I did really enjoy the implication, bordering on outright assertion, that Republican political consulting itself is as rigged, crony-capitalist and ultimately stifling of innovation and impervious to accountability as the markets their unhinged deregulation sometimes create.

edit: here's the actual link for the rest of youse

Trent Steele wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:There's definitely a "g" sound on the end, not a "k" sound, at least to my ears. I listened about 5 times. There also seems to be too long of a pause for it to be part of the word government that comes before it. He also seemed to get a little flustered, which I don't think he would be if he was just using a tea party word.

As I said initially, I understand where that interpretation comes from, and it might be right. I just hear more of a "k" sound. He definitely stumbled over whatever he was trying to say, and I don't know why you'd assign an ulterior motive to that.

Youseff wrote:http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 12m&cmpt=q

I said that it didn't make sense. I'm not sure what a Google trend would prove or disprove.

Yeah, I mean, what sense does government nig make anyway? And what purpose would Santorum have in using the word? Unless we think he uses it so often that it just slips out? To my mind he's so repressed, though, that he would stumble over the word pee-pee or bitch, I can't see him singing N words around. Governmentnik at least makes a little sense. Government nickle, government needing-there are other possibilities, but what's clear is that he lost his train of thought making it unclear what he was trying to express. When so many of his clear stated opinions are so offensive , dangerous or laughable, why go after a soundbite like this, not to mention it's on the same level as accusing Obama of not knowing how many states there are.

I find Santorum repulsive. I'm also certain that Swish has diagnosed this issue 100% accurately.

Well, I agree with some parts of this, but not other parts. First, government nig does make sense, it means you are a nigger for the government, doing the evil government's bidding. It fits in with the larger GOP narrative about the government taking over our lives and Obama driving that takeover. I think that makes much more sense than governmentnik. I also am surprised to hear anyone say that he couldn't make a slip like this. Slips like this in front of partisan crowds happen pretty frequently in politics. Macaca comes to mind, as does Romney calling 47% of americans lazy freeloaders. Among friends or true believers, it's easy to forget yourself. I'm sure there are dem examples of this, as well.

Second, the GOP has largely been successful over the past 30 years because they are relentlessly on the offensive. Even when it seems they should be on the defensive, they stay on the offensive. It works. I think dems need to do the same thing with their ideas, especially since their ideas are more popular and should be able to gain traction more easily than giving tax breaks to millionaires, for example. If republicans want liberals to stop nitpicking their word fragments for racist innuendo, then maybe they should stop pursuing outlandishly racist policies. It's as simple as that. If you are going to systematically try to take voting rights away from minorities, well then you can expect pushback from liberals and, at least in my opinion, that pushback should be as relentless as the GOP push to take those votes away. It may be that Santorum was using some other word. But you know what, I don't care. He's earned this by being part of a racist machine. I also happen to think it probably represents his views, so I certainly don't feel bad about it. Want us to stop calling you racist? Then stop being a racist. Simple.

My one disclaimer is to point out that I don't think all republicans are racist. But the GOP political machine certainly is and that needs to be called out, relentlessly, even when it's not completely clear, because I'm quite sure the GOP will take that approach.

Swiggers wrote:This is way, way, way down on the list of things not to like about Rick Santorum.

But this is the Internet, where we never pass up a chance to argue semantics.

Whenever Santorum is discussed here, it opens the door to post this again...

:Head exploding gif:

Anyway, this was getting retweeted a lot last night - The wrong way to weed out spies. I just went through this (tangentially) with a friend of mine whose clearance was getting renewed. The interview I sat through with the government employee couldn't have been more useless. She was circling answers she expected to hear before I gave them.

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:You guys are mean for making jh defend Pope Frothy.

Meanwhile, anyone read the Robert Draper piece in last Sunday's NYT magazine? I give him an A for reporting but a low D for analysis... curious what others think.

had not done, but have done now. I'm always a little leery of tales told by a chap trafficking in unnamed & unnameable "young party insiders".

Fair enough, though enough folks did go on record, including ones who presumably want to make money off Republicans through provision of goods and services, that I think it's fair to take his basic findings as valid.

I just thought he kind of conflated the medium with the message. He started by talking about how the Obamans ran circles around the Romneyites technology-wise, then essentially made the case that the best tech imaginable wouldn't have really helped since many/most voters reachable via the tech are fundamentally turned off by the Republicans' message.

I did really enjoy the implication, bordering on outright assertion, that Republican political consulting itself is as rigged, crony-capitalist and ultimately stifling of innovation and impervious to accountability as the markets their unhinged deregulation sometimes create.

edit: here's the actual link for the rest of youse

To be fair, I think all political consulting is rigged, crony-capitalist and ultimately stifling of innovation. There's just a limit to how much you can get away with. The other thing is that all consultants have a vested interest in making everyone believe that consultants matter a lot more than they probably do. It's not that campaign tactics and strategy don't matter, they do, just not as much as pundits and consultants would have you believe. But right now, Republicans believe that they have the right ideas, they just aren't selling them well. Thus, they are fodder for any flim flam artist with a powerpoint presentation who tells them what they want to hear.

yeah, the party line (that i heard, anyway) wasn't that the republicans lost, it's that they ran a poor campaign. Repeat it enough times and it becomes true!

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:You guys are mean for making jh defend Pope Frothy.

Meanwhile, anyone read the Robert Draper piece in last Sunday's NYT magazine? I give him an A for reporting but a low D for analysis... curious what others think.

had not done, but have done now. I'm always a little leery of tales told by a chap trafficking in unnamed & unnameable "young party insiders".

Fair enough, though enough folks did go on record, including ones who presumably want to make money off Republicans through provision of goods and services, that I think it's fair to take his basic findings as valid.

I just thought he kind of conflated the medium with the message. He started by talking about how the Obamans ran circles around the Romneyites technology-wise, then essentially made the case that the best tech imaginable wouldn't have really helped since many/most voters reachable via the tech are fundamentally turned off by the Republicans' message.

I did really enjoy the implication, bordering on outright assertion, that Republican political consulting itself is as rigged, crony-capitalist and ultimately stifling of innovation and impervious to accountability as the markets their unhinged deregulation sometimes create.

edit: here's the actual link for the rest of youse

To be fair, I think all political consulting is rigged, crony-capitalist and ultimately stifling of innovation. There's just a limit to how much you can get away with. The other thing is that all consultants have a vested interest in making everyone believe that consultants matter a lot more than they probably do. It's not that campaign tactics and strategy don't matter, they do, just not as much as pundits and consultants would have you believe. But right now, Republicans believe that they have the right ideas, they just aren't selling them well. Thus, they are fodder for any flim flam artist with a powerpoint presentation who tells them what they want to hear.

To be fair, that's the same thing that Dems said after the 2004 election. As it turned out, they weren't wrong. Their ideas didn't really change in 2008... they just had two much, much superior candidates than the uninspiring turd in 2004.

Sounds kinda like the GOP in 2012 to me. So I don't think it's unfair to say that if the GOP tweaks its sales pitch a bit, then brings up a couple of promising prospects from AAA (or even AA in Obama's case), they could do well in 2016.