That might be the most boring David Bowie cover ever. I mean, I don’t hate these guys, I even like some of them. But it could have been sung by one guy and it won’t be any different (preferably by David Cook, because he seems like the only one who has an actual soul in him).

Mario Chalmers’ buzzer three was pretty epic as well.

Those Google results are irrelevant. What is being criticized is the Daily Mail’s specific decision to use different terms, not the use of those terms in general.

I’m willing to bet that Pauly Shore is probably not a good representative of “white men”.

Except that her policy and record is repugnant to a lot of people who cherry-pick the stuff they disagree with and ignore all the good stuff because it doesn’t fit in with their erroneous view of her as some neocon nightmare mish-mash of Rumsfield and Cheney.

Wealthy people are more likely to live in blue states and have access no matter what. I really don’t think it concerns them much. And I don’t think I ever suggested you don’t care. I have not even an iota of doubt that you care. At all. You wouldn’t be worth talking to otherwise.

Well, you’re supposing a pretty strange set of circumstance- a candidate whose views you find repugnant, but whose views you find better than the other party’s views. If here views are really that repugnant, vote for the other guy? If they aren’t, then why shouldn’t you vote for her?

So you are opposed to the very idea of one party containing policy compromises. That is, opposed to the idea of a “Big Tent.” In your mind, to vote for someone whose policy positions do not exactly match yours, and, even more, for someone to say doing so is a good idea, is “repulsive.”

And she was a Nader-ite then too and of course she doesn’t care about making the same mistake again because Bush2 didn’t negatively affect her directly. Trump won’t either and if he comes close, she can fucking leave and go to Norway or wherever. We can’t. So fuck every upper middle class or richer white person,…

Yep, I think that explains a lot of the generational divide. The folks that are too young to remember the Bush Gore Nader disaster are excited about Bernie, and the rest of us are like, shit, this again

Why, that would involve blaming the Iraq war on GW Bush and Cheney- instead of blaming it on Clinton’s single vote. Oh, yes, Sanders is the only candidate ever with a *real* revolutionary agenda- except of course, Nader, who siphoned off enough of the liberal vote to give us GWB and endless war. Yeah, it went so well…

I question why these people are so certain there will be any kind of revolution—violent or otherwise. Two Bush presidencies weren’t enough to push the democratic party to be more progressive. Why do they think a Trump presidency would? The masses are pretty easy to keep quiet. The poor are working too hard and have…

People who want to make sure they have an ideologically pure voting record at the expense of real people getting hurt by letting a Republican win really make my heart hurt.

This is such a wildly privileged opinion. Real people will get hurt under Trump. SCOTUS will be changed. Laws will be passed. The military will be deployed, affecting people around the globe. I get that you want a different political system but this is the one we live in. Don’t throw others under the bus in your quest…

“The real life Heller claims he wasn’t such a shady manager.”

Oh good lord, seriously? People can do what they want with their money. Jeez.

Dude, I’m fucking done with Sanders. I gave him a ton of money and I wish I could ask for it back. This fundraiser was done specifically to raise money for downballot candidates—the kind of congresspeople Sanders would actually need to fuel his imaginary revolution.

Yea, but worse than candy corn? Worse than those Valentine’s day hearts made out of chalk?

But I have all this maple syrup and hot peppers!!1!

People, please start believing that health care IS the miracle God sent you.