View Full Version : GOP Nominee
Fiddling_nero
08-17-2011, 07:57
This speaks for itself.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier?xrs=share_copy
Major Robert Dump
08-17-2011, 08:12
Yep, just like the past 4 elections he has participated in.
BUT HE WAS IN THE BRUNO MOVIE!!!
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2011, 08:14
BUT HE WAS IN THE BRUNO MOVIE!!!
This is true, but only because Bruno was mistaken in thinking that Ron Paul was actually Ru Paul.
Major Robert Dump
08-17-2011, 08:41
The left ignores Ron Paul because they see him as a threat.
The right ignores Ron Paul because he is not a war hawk, he is more than happy to admit that the US had made "mistakes" and angered other nations on the grounds of our own national best interests. Even if one agrees with pursuit of those interests, ignoring the effects on the ground of moral superiority is something Ron Paul does not do. Iran has every right to hate the US. Cuba has every right to hate the US.
And who was the effin moron who said Isreal is the closest and greatest ally the US has ever had? OMG
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2011, 08:50
And who was the effin moron who said Isreal is the closest and greatest ally the US has ever had? OMG
That was Santorum.
Major Robert Dump
08-17-2011, 10:41
Yes, because Israel has been by our side and fought next to us in soooo many wars.
Centurion1
08-17-2011, 11:54
I would say that Tpaw and even Romney are intellectuals ACIN.
I hate Ron Paul because I see another Ross Perot who essentially screwed over HW.
It is ironic however that W may have only won because of Nader.
Major Robert Dump
08-17-2011, 12:36
I would say that Tpaw and even Romney are intellectuals ACIN.
I hate Ron Paul because I see another Ross Perot who essentially screwed over HW.
It is ironic however that W may have only won because of Nader.
Perot turned out to be right about a lot of things. Because he foiled a candidate who for all intents beat himself, you hate him? If a viable candidate can run, he should run, and give ****all about how it is going to affect the other candidates. This is exactly why the two-party system is retarded, and exactly why the two parties want to keep it a two party system.
Who cares i Ron Paul steals votes for the oh-so-infallible Republicans. Maybe if they would get their *** together this woudln't be happening.
Tellos Athenaios
08-17-2011, 14:07
Perot turned out to be right about a lot of things. Because he foiled a candidate who for all intents beat himself, you hate him? If a viable candidate can run, he should run, and give ****all about how it is going to affect the other candidates. This is exactly why the two-party system is retarded, and exactly why the two parties want to keep it a two party system.
Who cares i Ron Paul steals votes for the oh-so-infallible Republicans. Maybe if they would get their *** together this woudln't be happening.
This. Or to get in a cheap quip: grow up and do a many party system already where candidates can be elected based on *actual* politics and more than one idea can be voiced instead of trying to please everybody.
Omg, omg, omg. Ron Paul's new ad!
It's a shame Don LaFontaine died a few years back, having him do the voiceover would have been pure win.
Strike For The South
08-17-2011, 17:21
As long as someone takes King Perry off our hands I'll be happy, stick him somewhere I don't care where
If Romney or Huntsman get nominated I could probably be swayed to vote GOP with a caveat, No Bachman, Cain, or Santourum within 300 feet
Double A
08-18-2011, 16:19
Perot turned out to be right about a lot of things. Because he foiled a candidate who for all intents beat himself, you hate him? If a viable candidate can run, he should run, and give ****all about how it is going to affect the other candidates. This is exactly why the two-party system is retarded, and exactly why the two parties want to keep it a two party system.
Who cares i Ron Paul steals votes for the oh-so-infallible Republicans. Maybe if they would get their *** together this woudln't be happening.
Good news, though. We actually aren't a two-party system. If only everyone would acknowledge that.
We actually are a two-party system. If only everyone would acknowledge that.
Not sure I get where you're going with this. Could you expand on that idea a little? I will give you a bowl of ice cream if you will clarify.
Double A
08-18-2011, 16:44
Gah. It was a typo, I meant aren't.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-18-2011, 18:06
De jure, we are not a two party system; we have several dozen parties of one stripe or another registered.
De facto, we are.
"Third" parties either enjoy a brief prominence and then fade away (S. Douglas, T. Roosevelt, Wallace, Perot, Nader) after undercutting one of the two major parties,
OR
The third party rapidly "consumes" the major party and replaces it (GOP replaces Whigs)
OR
A brief period of One Party Only generates a "splinter" group that forms a second party (Democratic-Republ;icans split into Democrats and Whigs)
Double A
08-18-2011, 18:18
I like how the last two examples only happened once.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-18-2011, 18:46
I like how the last two examples only happened once.
They are, indeed, rarer phenomena. Only the first case is really common. We cling to our two party approach pretty tenaciously.
a completely inoffensive name
08-18-2011, 20:29
I would say that Tpaw and even Romney are intellectuals ACIN.
Nope. Tpaw was the best candidate out there besides Ron Paul but he was not an intellectual. Romney is all about saying what people like, not what his own ideas are.
There are plenty of conservative professors and intellectual institutions. Farm from there, not from populist decided governor races.
Ron Paul, or rather an avid supporter, has finally found a way to make headlines. The All-Texas Brawl! (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/18/rick_perry_women_ad)
An Austin Ron Paul supporter has taken out a full-page ad in the local alt weekly newspaper seeking any "stripper ... escort ... or 'young hottie'" who has slept with Rick Perry, part of his single-minded jihad against the presidential candidate.
Robert Morrow describes himself as a "self-employed investor and political activist" as well as a three-time delegate to the Texas state GOP convention.
"Have you ever had sex with Rick Perry?" blares the ad, placed by Morrow in this week's Austin Chronicle. "Are you a stripper, an escort, or just a 'young hottie' impressed by an arrogant, entitled governor of Texas? Contact CASH, and we will help you publicize your direct dealings with a Christian-buzzwords-spouting, 'family values' hypocrite and fraud."
CASH is the Committee Against Sexual Hypocrisy, of which Morrow is president. "Is it a real group? No. It's just me," he told Salon earlier this week. Here is the ad, which the paper confirmed is running today.
To be clear, there is absolutely no evidence that Perry has had extramarital affairs. But Morrow has written a screed, currently circulating online, that denounces Perry both for his policies (it labels him a "crony capitalist" and a "Neocon") as well as his alleged dalliances.
Morrow claims that he knows strippers in Austin who have stories about Perry, but none of them are willing to come forward to the press; hence, the need for an ad in the Chronicle. "I think it's only a matter of time until somebody credible comes forward," he told me.
At the bottom of the ad is a nod to the longtime (and equally unsubstantiated) rumors that Perry, who has pursued sundry anti-gay policies, is himself gay. "Note to gay people: If you know the truth about Rick, please QUIT covering for him," it reads.
I must get one of my Austin relatives to pick me up a copy. :yes:
a completely inoffensive name
08-19-2011, 05:00
Hey Strike, is your GPA above a 2.3? Because if so, you are a better uni student than Rick Parry!
EDIT: Removed hot linked picture of Governor Perry's grades. Please host pictures yourself. BG.
Montmorency
08-19-2011, 05:10
Och, required phys. ed. in Uni?
And animal breeding? With biometry and physics?
Major Robert Dump
08-19-2011, 05:54
Good news, though. We actually aren't a two-party system. If only everyone would acknowledge that.
You're right. We are actually a one-party system pretending to be a two party system pretending to be democratic, capitalist and free. I think its probably a running joke after hours in the Capital cantina.
Rick Parry: How in the **** do you make a "C" in a class called MEATS at an agri business school. Okay, Failed Organic Chemistry and had to retake, still got a D, got a couple of other Ds, got Cs in classes that are, quite frankly, somewhat dummy proof so either he is a tard or he just didn't go to class.....
But a C in MEATS?
Major Robert Dump
08-19-2011, 05:57
Och, required phys. ed. in Uni?
And animal breeding? With biometry and physics?
It's an agriculture school. Running a successful ranch operation takes more than water and tractors
Centurion1
08-19-2011, 05:59
Well monty biometry can be applicable in animal breeding they both have ties to biology.
And acin...... tsk tsk man just going to play typical campaign attacks? Attacking the mans intelligence? Maybe it would mean more to me if he hadn't already stated his GPA......
My GPA is only a 3.1 as an ECON major but I already have a diverse investment portfolio and an internship with a prestigious investment firm under my belt. Your college GPA matters in Grad school and when you go to get your diploma senior year. In the real world other things are of greater importance.
Are you going to dig up his church attendance and high school transcripts next?
I don't like the fellow but I am not going to attack the mans intellect......
TBH as much a fascination as attacking presidents citizenship is for Republicans it appears that attacking a mans intelligence is a fetish for the Democrats. Same story with Bush when his opponent in Al Gore had similarly poor grades. I scored higher on the SAT test than the man but I in no way believe I am smarter than him. I think Democrats have some sort of short man complex regarding individuals intelligence.
I will also note nobody knows what Obama's undergraduate grades or LSAT scores but I don't see democrats screaming for them to pass some sort of test for candidacy it appears the POTUS must pass.
Centurion1
08-19-2011, 06:06
You're right. We are actually a one-party system pretending to be a two party system pretending to be democratic, capitalist and free. I think its probably a running joke after hours in the Capital cantina.
Rick Parry: How in the **** do you make a "C" in a class called MEATS at an agri business school. Okay, Failed Organic Chemistry and had to retake, still got a D, got a couple of other Ds, got Cs in classes that are, quite frankly, somewhat dummy proof so either he is a tard or he just didn't go to class.....
But a C in MEATS?
Closet Vegetarian?
That would isolate more voters than being an evil GAYZ
Montmorency
08-19-2011, 06:09
Right, Texas. My bad. As a city-slicker, such things are difficult for me to internalize.
Major Robert Dump
08-19-2011, 06:11
Well monty biometry can be applicable in animal breeding they both have ties to biology.
And acin...... tsk tsk man just going to play typical campaign attacks? Attacking the mans intelligence? Maybe it would mean more to me if he hadn't already stated his GPA......
My GPA is only a 3.1 as an ECON major but I already have a diverse investment portfolio and an internship with a prestigious investment firm under my belt. Your college GPA matters in Grad school and when you go to get your diploma senior year. In the real world other things are of greater importance.
Ar eyou going to dig up his church attendance and high school transcripts next?
But he made a "C" in a class called MEATS!!!1 And he claims to be a lifelong Texan? PFFFFFT
Seriously, I feel the F in Organic Chemistry followed by a D on retake. Sounds like me and an Marine Botany Class once upon a time.
Perry is playing the tough talkin, face smirking, gun slingin country boy image like another guy did a few elections back. I don't think it's going to work this time. The military isn't going to buy it, wall street isn't going to buy it, fiscal conservatives aren't going to buy it (especially on scrutiny of his Texas reign). But, hey, anything could happen
Centurion1
08-19-2011, 07:04
But he made a "C" in a class called MEATS!!!1 And he claims to be a lifelong Texan? PFFFFFT
Seriously, I feel the F in Organic Chemistry followed by a D on retake. Sounds like me and an Marine Botany Class once upon a time.
Perry is playing the tough talkin, face smirking, gun slingin country boy image like another guy did a few elections back. I don't think it's going to work this time. The military isn't going to buy it, wall street isn't going to buy it, fiscal conservatives aren't going to buy it (especially on scrutiny of his Texas reign). But, hey, anything could happen
I don't like the man and won't be voting for him but I don't think that calling into question whether or not he is intelligent is either valid or questionable.
Major Robert Dump
08-19-2011, 07:30
Ah, yes, the whole "I WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND DO THINGS THAT AFFECT THE LIVES BOTH PUBLIC AND PERSONAL OF ALL AMERICANS S WELL AS THE REST OF THE WORLD BUT I DONT WANT MY PRIVATE LIFE TO BE SCRUTINIZED LIKE I WANT TO SCRUTIZE, SAY, GAY PEOPLE" argument.
He's running for office and he holds office. He makes decisions that affect and will affect, for example, education. Let's say he wants to do away with Pell Grants and Student Loans. Let's say that he blew off college because, as a rich kid, he could. I would say a guy who took for granted his undergraduate degree needs to be held accountable when making decisions that affect people for whom a college education is a lifeline, such as the 1000s of kids in college now who are the first ever in their family lineages. His college transcript, much like mine, is an insult of sorts to people who actually studied hard enough to make perfect grades. But I didn't study hard enough because I also worked a full time job and a part time job. Was that his case? Was it not? these things shaped the politician and should shape the ideas of the people voting for him. And I have a huge problem when congress, 90% of whom have never "Served" outside of their high paying congressional jobs, decide to restructure and gut the military retirement system before the do the same with the federal or congressional retirement system, and this as we are nearing the 10 year mark of simeltaneous war.
Wahsington and state capitals are full of slugs, and everything about them needs to be scrutinized. I have less problem with an honest former pothead than a "christian" who screws the babysitter.
Adulterers should choose words and actions wisely to lecture us about marriage being sacred and family values. Tax cheats should choose words and actions wisely to lecture us about doing our civil duty to pay taxes. People who blew off college should choose words and actions wisely before lecturing us on education.
These offices these men and women are running for will provide them a tit to suck and exploit the rest of their lives, and they will be entrusted with almost godly power and state secrets. Everything from their military records to their freaking baptismal should be scrutinized.
It's not about finding faults, its about finding hypocrisy and lies. I have no problem with a guy who never served in the military, or a guy who served at a desk. I do have a problem with a guy who shammed his way through the Texas National Guard and then fake lands a plane on a ship to say "mission accomplished" for a lucrative war convenience on the backs of soldiers and their families. I have a problem with a guy who pretends to be avietnam veteran with all sorts of hooah action when in fact he was a daddy's boy getting VIP escorts around the battlefield and recieving select assignments.
Double A
08-19-2011, 10:18
You're right. We are actually a one-party system pretending to be a two party system pretending to be democratic, capitalist and free. I think its probably a running joke after hours in the Capital cantina.
Rick Parry: How in the **** do you make a "C" in a class called MEATS at an agri business school. Okay, Failed Organic Chemistry and had to retake, still got a D, got a couple of other Ds, got Cs in classes that are, quite frankly, somewhat dummy proof so either he is a tard or he just didn't go to class.....
But a C in MEATS?
Hey, at least we'll always have our circuses.
Well anyway, I only came in here to say that. I'm hungry. Wonder if I have any bread...
Tellos Athenaios
08-19-2011, 13:00
Grades don't necessarily reflect intelligence, but it is basically the only thing on the man's C.V. which indicate (lack of) any. And given the man's governing record (ask Strike) we have a very good basis so assume his ability to govern effectively and responsibly is roughly similar to his ability to achieve a decent GPA. I.e. none at all.
Bachmann - Americans fear the rise of the Soviet Union (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/08/michele-bachmann-soviet-union-/1?csp=34news)
I guess 'Red Dawn' was showing in her hotel room last night and she assumed it was a documentary.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-19-2011, 15:37
Modern politics in action.
Every word or statement is parsed and attacked for any leading candidate from the time they wake up until the time they go to sleep. Snoring habits and micturition seem to be private, but little else.
All in all, this is a bad thing, I think. We are forcing our political leaders to become inhuman. We do not simply evaluate whether or not they can handle pressure, but we force them to become artificial constructs -- and bland ones at that.
Scrutiny so as to minimize the number of llona Stallers or Juan Perons reaching office is a good thing, but parsing everything to a fare the well neuters leadership.
Could a John Kennedy be elected today? Could a Winston Churchill? Or must we be content with the current caliber of leadership forever?
Louis VI the Fat
08-19-2011, 15:48
Modern politics in action.
Every word or statement is parsed and attacked for any leading candidate from the time they wake up until the time they go to sleep. Snoring habits and micturition seem to be private, but little else.
All in all, this is a bad thing, I think. We are forcing our political leaders to become inhuman. We do not simply evaluate whether or not they can handle pressure, but we force them to become artificial constructs -- and bland ones at that.
Scrutiny so as to minimize the number of llona Stallers or Juan Perons reaching office is a good thing, but parsing everything to a fare the well neuters leadership.
Could a John Kennedy be elected today? Could a Winston Churchill? Or must we be content with the current caliber of leadership forever?That's a good point.
If you put too much constraints ona kitchen, you end up with airline food. You sometimes need not want to know what is going on in the kitchen, and judge the chef on what the waiter brings out on a plate.
Louis - dreaming of being spoiled by a great chef tonight
gaelic cowboy
08-19-2011, 18:09
Could a John Kennedy be elected today? Could a Winston Churchill? Or must we be content with the current caliber of leadership forever?
Looks like it to be honest.
Funny thing is politicians have always been attacked for various spurious reasons, Kennedy had to get ahead of fear of Rome and Churchill was never liked anyway.
However today it does seem to be slicker and more destructive probably because of TV I suppose.
Adrian II
08-19-2011, 18:44
From the New Yorker's man with the Bachmann campaign:
Marcus announced that he would now analyze everyone around him. He asked for three characteristics that a close friend might use to describe me. I demurred. He kept pushing: “So reporters are not that vulnerable?” “Maybe it’s a man thing.”
Poor Marcus :laugh4:
link (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=3)
Vladimir
08-19-2011, 19:24
That's the New Yorker; quite a different group of people.
I do agree though. That guy sounds like an ID 10 T.
Louis VI the Fat
08-19-2011, 20:44
That's the New Yorker; quite a different group of people.
I do agree though. That guy sounds like an ID 10 T.Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Some people are just so dumb you marvel that they manage to remember to draw breath every five seconds. This is really annoying to hyperintelligent people such as myself. :no:
Oh, and what does that 'ID 10 T' mean? I just can't figure it out. :huh:
Louis - educated people watch New York Times not Fox.
Adrian II
08-20-2011, 09:04
Stupid typo, I've corrected it.
Anyway, Marcus isn't so bad. But he's the kind that hangs around at your barbecue long after everyone else has gone and you only notice him just before you switch off the lights.
AII
Major Robert Dump
08-20-2011, 09:20
The "inhuman" form that these politicians have to assume in order to meet our excessive scrutiny of their lives is a direct result of the fact that they are crooks and liars. One begets another. We require transparency and scrutiny as a result of Washingtons past and present actions. They started it.
Double A
08-20-2011, 14:24
If only being robots meant they weren't corrupt.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-20-2011, 15:17
The "inhuman" form that these politicians have to assume in order to meet our excessive scrutiny of their lives is a direct result of the fact that they are crooks and liars. One begets another. We require transparency and scrutiny as a result of Washingtons past and present actions. They started it.
A fair amount of truth to this point as well. The crooks and liars component is always too big a slice of the government pie.
Major Robert Dump
08-20-2011, 16:11
I read the New Yorker article because I was bored.
I never knew she went to religious colleges. She also tried to start a charter school with her buddies and was facing secularism issue because of the crap they were shoving down the kids and parents throats, and she left after parents and the state complained. Also, her tax "expertise" from working at the IRS for 4 years consists of 18 months of maternity leave from her evil, big government job.
I already disliked her before the article. I suddenly feel justified.
Adrian II
08-20-2011, 19:43
I already disliked her before the article. I suddenly feel justified.
I think it's kinda sweet that Bachmann is afraid of the Soviet Union.
AII
John Huntsman wakes up (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/jon-huntsman-comes-out-swinging.html). About **** time. He's my personal favorite of the field, a sort of old-school Republican, from the days when "conservative" meant conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Legacy) and competence mattered. I would be relatively comfortable with a guy like this for Prez. (And moreover, I think he would give that shameless Irishman, Barry O'Bama a good run in the general.)
The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.
The Republican Party has to remember that we're drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And we've got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a - a party that - that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future and it's not a winning formula. [...]
I wouldn't necessarily trust any of my opponents right now, who were on a recent debate stage with me, when every single one of them would have allowed this country to default. You can imagine, even given the uncertainty of the marketplace the last several days and even the last couple of weeks, if we had defaulted the first time in the history of the greatest country that ever was, being 25 percent of the world's GDP and having the largest financial services sector in this world by a long shot, if we had defaulted, Jake, this marketplace would be in absolute turmoil. And people who are already losing enough as it is on their 401(k)s and retirement programs and home valuations, it would have been catastrophic.
So I have to say that there was zero leadership on display in terms of my opponents. Leaders -- zero leadership on display in terms of the president, who should have used the bully pulpit well ahead of time. He should have walked away from the teleprompter. The people want you to speak from your heart and soul. Tell us where you want us to go. Tell us what you expect from Congress. Tell us what's on your mind.
That never happened. And it waited until the eleventh hour and then we had some of my Republican opponents who basically, I think, recommended something that would have been catastrophic for this economy. I stood alone in terms of supporting the Boehner plan. Why? Because I don't think you can just allow the greatest nation that ever was, 25 percent of the world's GDP, to default. I thought the -- the implications would have been catastrophic. The global markets would have been a complete wreck.
Instead, we had Speaker Boehner, I think a pretty courageous guy, step up and say we can cut deeper than we have to take it up in order to meet our obligations. And, by the way, we can move forward with entitlement reform and we can move forward with a balanced budget amendment and ultimately competitive tax reform, which we absolutely need.
Remember when he started his campaign by saying he wouldn't go negative? Attacking your party usually isn't a good path to victory in the primaries. I guess no one told Huntsman. :shrug:
He's not running to win anyhow- he has no chance. Possibly, he's angling for a VP slot as a moderate counterbalance to a more conservative candidate. Or, he's already looking towards 2016 by positioning himself as the "electable candidate" if the conservatives lose out this time.
He supports Cap & Trade and healthcare mandates. Spending ballooned in his state while governor. He was in the Obama administration. He attacks his party with a false dichotomy on "science". He doesn't have a chance in hell.
[Huntsman] doesn't have a chance in hell.
In the primary, mind. In the general I think he would be a very strong contender.
Were he running in the general, would you vote for him over Obama?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-23-2011, 21:00
Were he running in the general, would you vote for him over Obama?
Of course not. Why would I want to vote for "big government lite" when I can have a candidate whose honestly focused on that approach for real.
Were he running in the general, would you vote for him over Obama?
If you're going to adopt that tack, may I inquire how Fred Thompson, your former heartthrob, worked out as a primary and general candidate? Oh, that's right, he bombed. And yet you are allowed to voice opinions . This would suggest that who you or I personally intend to vote for does not have a bearing on whether or not we're allowed to evaluate and comment on candidates. IMHO, Huntsman would be formidable in the general, but you are correct that he stands no realistic chance in the primary.
Why would I want to vote for "big government lite" when I can have a candidate whose honestly focused on that approach for real.
Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.
Centurion1
08-24-2011, 09:43
If you're going to adopt that tack, may I inquire how Fred Thompson, your former heartthrob, worked out as a primary and general candidate? Oh, that's right, he bombed. And yet you are allowed to voice opinions . This would suggest that who you or I personally intend to vote for does not have a bearing on whether or not we're allowed to evaluate and comment on candidates. IMHO, Huntsman would be formidable in the general, but you are correct that he stands no realistic chance in the primary.
Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.
Xiahou's, correct, point is that if you want to run a moderate in the races instead of a solid party man like Obama you have to be enough to take extra voters from him. Otherwise your best served to play a party man. In essence a moderate has to be the Messiah to win.
Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.
Essentially that is the difference between Left and Right with a few exceptions such as defense.
Your being entirely too defensive though Lemur what got your hackles so raised.
Your being entirely too defensive though Lemur what got your hackles so raised.
The main irritant would be this mindless, zombie-like mouthing of the notion that Repub = small guvmint and dem = big socialism. I realize that's the party line as spewed by Fox News, NRO and pretty much every organ in the conservative-media complex, but still, I don't expect thoughtful people to echo it, given that it has no basis in fact or history.
Don't know why I bother repeating it, since it's both obvious, checkable and ignored by the hordes of born-again budget virgins, but the last Republican President was directly responsible for two unfunded wars, a giant unfunded giveaway to pharma and old people, and a giant tax break during wartime. And his Vice President, when questioned about this reckless spending, declared that "deficits don't matter."
But now, three whole years later, when we're wallowing in the aftereffects of all that irresponsible spending, when trillions have been sucked out of the economy to fund two middle eastern adventures, when the same Republicans in congress who cheered and supported Bush 43 are in office, we're supposed to accept as an article of faith that Republicans are the party of small government and personal liberty, or some such sack of stinking horse manure?
Feh. People who get high on their own talking points and reality-defying rhetoric shouldn't be allowed to drive.
I'm interested in the GOP nominee because whomever it turns out to be will have a realistic chance of being prez. I have skin in the game.
Xiahou will inevitably wind up voting for some third-party candidate because the GOP nominee will fail one of his purity tests, so his question about who I would vote for was deeply hilarious, if you know the players.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-24-2011, 14:24
...Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.
Who urinated in your Wheaties, my proto-simian friend?
Of course, this is one axis of measurement for candidates. For me, an important one. You know better than to believe that that represents the sole metric I employ.
Besides, my magic decoder ring doesn't work worth a hoot anymore. I purchased early and got the "The USSR is an Evil Empire" edition. It's sadly out of date, but I just can't get myself to buy a new one since by the time it's out there they are already beta testing the next ring. I'm hamstrung by anticipatory buyer's remorse.
Major Robert Dump
08-24-2011, 15:23
I like how the right has repeated the "Time to stop blaming Bush" mantra as if a Republican president would not have had the same mess to clean up. I find that statement remarkably shallow and similar to the ones somehow dismissing global warming by the fact that it gets cold. If you repeat something enough times, people will start to buy into it, especially the rank-and-file and the dim. The left does it with attacks on the tea party by providing anectdotal evidence of racism, because we all know a few retards represent the entire batch. And all Baptist youth camp counselors are homoesexual.
Who urinated in your Wheaties, my proto-simian friend?
I blame my natural prosimian lack of control. I am only capable of eating it, fighting it, fleeing from it or making sexytime with it. Everything else is too nuanced for a lemur.
Here's a good piece on Huntsman: The insanity of running as a sane GOP candidate (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/22/huntsman_bash_republicans/index.html).
The idea is to build the same kind of maverick image that McCain, with his Straight Talk Express and campaign finance reform crusade, established for himself in 2000. There is some logic to this: Surely, there are a fair number of Republican voters who are bothered by the party's direction these past few years, and even if they're a minority within the party, it's not like anyone else is airing their concerns. [...]
But there are some crucial differences between what McCain did in 2000 (and why he was able to do it) and what Huntsman's strategy is likely to produce.
One is that McCain wasn't actually that far off the GOP reservation. His main break with the GOP establishment was over campaign finance reform, an issue that mattered for nothing to most Republican voters but that mattered a great deal to the party's interest group establishment. [...]
But the more fundamental problem for Huntsman is that the Republican Party is just in a different place than it was 11 years ago. Ever since Barack Obama was elected, a siege mentality has gripped the GOP. Even Republicans who agree with him on some level are apt to shrug off Huntsman's calls for intraparty soul-searching: There'll be time for that fight after we get the socialist out of the White House, not before.
And all Baptist youth camp counselors are homoesexual.
This is a self-evident truth.
-edit-
Ladies and gents, we have a new frontrunner (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx).
Strike For The South
08-25-2011, 16:59
It would seem my state is playing kingmaker
Not surprising
I know who I'm voting for. (http://cthulhu-2012.com/)
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2011, 17:49
I know who I'm voting for. (http://cthulhu-2012.com/)
"In his palace at Ryaa'lay'ah, dead Cthulu lies dreaming."
...and, apparently, awaits being drafted for the 2012 race. Euclid? **** Euclid!
At this point, Cthulu is probably the lesser evil.
Banquo's Ghost
08-26-2011, 12:53
Cthulhu hasn't got a chance. He's too slimy for the Great Old Ones (aka Florida voters). :wink:
The nomination would be sewn up if Nyarlathotep were to announce. After all, his followers lose all awareness of the world around them, so the deficit should be easy to ignore.
If you're going to adopt that tack, may I inquire how Fred Thompson, your former heartthrob, worked out as a primary and general candidate? Oh, that's right, he bombed. And yet you are allowed to voice opinions . This would suggest that who you or I personally intend to vote for does not have a bearing on whether or not we're allowed to evaluate and comment on candidates. IMHO, Huntsman would be formidable in the general, but you are correct that he stands no realistic chance in the primary.And you've totally missed the point. You say Huntsman is your favorite in the field and that he'd be a formidable contender in the general election.
The implication is that he would have mass appeal by not being so hard right as the other candidates and he could attract moderates from both parties, yes? So, I asked would disillusioned Obama supporters (you) vote Huntsman? That sounds like a resounding no. You could also count on a good many hard-right Republicans staying home or voting third party. I think Huntsman would only be a formidable force for Obama's reelection.
It looks like current polling data (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_huntsman_vs_obama-2005.html) bears this out.
Regardless of who wins, I won't be voting third party this year. It's too important to stop Obama's mismanagement of our economy. I think I'd vote for my garbageman if he had a credible chance of winning. Taxes and regulations aren't the way to grow the economy. It's bad now, but when Obamacare comes online in 2014 things are going to get really hairy if someone doesn't put the brakes on.
In other news, Perry has gotten the all important Kinky Friedman endorsement (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/perry-lands-kinky-endorsement-171520236.html):
In his own words:
"So, would I support Rick Perry for president? Hell, yes! As the last nail that hasn't been hammered down in this country, I agree with Rick that there are already too damn many laws, taxes, regulations, panels, committees, and bureaucrats. While Obama is busy putting the hyphen between 'anal' and 'retentive' Rick will be rolling up his sleeves and getting to work."
And my favorite line.....
"Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay," he wrote. "I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama.":laugh4:
Perry isn't my ideal candidate, but I'd rate him as "acceptable". But regardless of my opinion, I predict (barring some sort of campaign implosion) he'll be the next president.
Vladimir
08-26-2011, 20:24
In other news, Perry has gotten the all important Kinky Friedman endorsement (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/perry-lands-kinky-endorsement-171520236.html):
And my favorite line..... :laugh4:
Perry isn't my ideal candidate, but I'd rate him as "acceptable". But regardless of my opinion, I predict (barring some sort of campaign implosion) he'll be the next president.
While I'm all about Kinky, Perry doesn't have a chance.
All the W haters need to hear is the word "Texas" and they'll vote in droves against him. I also doubt conservative leaning moderates will vote for him either. While I think his style of leadership would be refreshing, I think most of the squishy center is tired of a Texan in the White House.
While I'm all about Kinky, Perry doesn't have a chance.
All the W haters need to hear is the word "Texas" and they'll vote in droves against him. I also doubt conservative leaning moderates will vote for him either. While I think his style of leadership would be refreshing, I think most of the squishy center is tired of a Texan in the White House.
absolutely.....
so you have the incumbent that was elected in the wave of the anti-dubya sentiment.....and the GOP is gonna run a Dubya clone against him?
talk about a loosing ticket.
Cthulhu hasn't got a chance. He's too slimy for the Great Old Ones (aka Florida voters). :wink:
The nomination would be sewn up if Nyarlathotep were to announce. After all, his followers lose all awareness of the world around them, so the deficit should be easy to ignore.
Glenn Beck is now running for president?
Ronin, there's a portion of the population (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135568-GOP-Nominee&p=2053365241&viewfull=1#post2053365241)that would vote for a warm can of mayonnaise if it ran against Obama, so running a Bush clone isn't suicidal per se. The question is how many people need to combine with tie die-hard O-haters to eke out an electoral college majority.
Too complicated for me to predict, so I'll leave that to full-time statisticians like Nate Silver.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-27-2011, 15:28
Ronin, there's a portion of the population (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135568-GOP-Nominee&p=2053365241&viewfull=1#post2053365241)that would vote for a warm can of mayonnaise if it ran against Obama, so running a Bush clone isn't suicidal per se. The question is how many people need to combine with tie die-hard O-haters to eke out an electoral college majority.
Too complicated for me to predict, so I'll leave that to full-time statisticians like Nate Silver.
A good bit of truth in this point. I am fairly dead-set against the Obama policy set and am strongly inclined to vote against. Regrettably, I am likely to have a total non-entity as my GOP alternative. Sigh.......
Fisherking
08-27-2011, 15:37
A good bit of truth in this point. I am fairly dead-set against the Obama policy set and am strongly inclined to vote against. Regrettably, I am likely to have a total non-entity as my GOP alternative. Sigh.......
I am of the opinion that it doesn’t much matter who runs against the big O this time.
As long as he runs I think he will win. He would have to step all over himself to not win.
Also, remember that the Democrats always do a better job at voter turnout than the Republicans. The dead always vote D.
Ronin, there's a portion of the population (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135568-GOP-Nominee&p=2053365241&viewfull=1#post2053365241)that would vote for a warm can of mayonnaise if it ran against Obama, so running a Bush clone isn't suicidal per se. The question is how many people need to combine with tie die-hard O-haters to eke out an electoral college majority.
Too complicated for me to predict, so I'll leave that to full-time statisticians like Nate Silver.
the last election also proves a lot of the population were fed up with Bush......and it was just 4 years ago...it's still very fresh on the minds of the people.
We will see who is right...but to pick a guy that is so similar to the president that was shunned just 4 years ago doesn´t seem like sound strategy.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-27-2011, 21:34
There are drawbacks to be sure. Perry twigs all of the left's "We want Laicite" fibers into high gear -- which will produce some turn out for the Dem base. And, in addition, a segment of the middle who like conservative economics but liberal social policies will be repelled.
On the other hand, a good progressive GOP nominee will please about half the middle and keep most of the base, especially the tea party wing, interested in staying home rather than voting.
As I said earlier, Obama will be re-elected. It will not be pretty, and will not have the charismatic elements his first election did, but he will get back in.
As I said earlier, Obama will be re-elected. It will not be pretty, and will not have the charismatic elements his first election did, but he will get back in.I'm curious why you think so. I think it'd be pretty unprecedented for a president to win reelection with numbers like his are now. I think the economy would have to make a major turnaround before the election for Obama to be a lock. If things stay as they are now or get worse (which is a fair possibility), I think the odds are against Obama. I think any of the top tier GOP candidates right now have a pretty good chance to win.
I wish I could find a more updated version of this poll (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnn-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/), but it's hard to imagine the numbers got any better for Obama since last year....
By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
Hosakawa Tito
08-28-2011, 11:23
Obama will lose and it won't even be close.
Banquo's Ghost
08-28-2011, 11:29
Obama will lose and it won't even be close.
:inquisitive:
How can you say that without knowing who he will be up against?
No-one even knows what policies will be put forward. I realise that personalities play the biggest part in presidential elections, but doesn't anyone want to see an actual manifesto before deciding?
slashandburn
08-28-2011, 14:05
Xiahou: (I stole time on my son's account; this is Seamus talking)
The basic issue I have is that NONE of the GOP top tier are top tier. Obama, as a campaigner, is. He comes with some huge inbuilt advantages (Commanding leads in the Black and Hispanic blocs in all of the major urban areas) and all of the "moderates" who went for him last time have to actively vote AGAINST the first black president. Some of them will simply not be able to do so -- just as my father couldn't vote against the first Irish Catholic nominee in 1960 even though he truly believed Nixon was the better choice for President. So, ultimately, I simply do not think the 39% approval rate is going to hurt Obama a whole lot more than the 20% approval of Congress hurts the Congressional incumbents.
So, to counter that, the GOP would need a candidate who could dynamically and POSITIVELY argue for conservatism, emphasizing the small government/fiscally responsible elements while quietly representing family values issues. Instead, we have a choice between strident conservatives and glib progressives who won't motivate enough of the base. Obama then wins. It'll be ugly and concentrated in big vote urban states and much more like a Clinton win then his last one, but I think he will squeek back in.
gaelic cowboy
08-28-2011, 19:58
Xiahou: (I stole time on my son's account; this is Seamus talking)
The basic issue I have is that NONE of the GOP top tier are top tier. Obama, as a campaigner, is. He comes with some huge inbuilt advantages (Commanding leads in the Black and Hispanic blocs in all of the major urban areas) and all of the "moderates" who went for him last time have to actively vote AGAINST the first black president. Some of them will simply not be able to do so -- just as my father couldn't vote against the first Irish Catholic nominee in 1960 even though he truly believed Nixon was the better choice for President. So, ultimately, I simply do not think the 39% approval rate is going to hurt Obama a whole lot more than the 20% approval of Congress hurts the Congressional incumbents.
So, to counter that, the GOP would need a candidate who could dynamically and POSITIVELY argue for conservatism, emphasizing the small government/fiscally responsible elements while quietly representing family values issues. Instead, we have a choice between strident conservatives and glib progressives who won't motivate enough of the base. Obama then wins. It'll be ugly and concentrated in big vote urban states and much more like a Clinton win then his last one, but I think he will squeek back in.
:yes: indeed
Hosakawa Tito
08-28-2011, 23:47
:inquisitive:
How can you say that without knowing who he will be up against?
No-one even knows what policies will be put forward. I realise that personalities play the biggest part in presidential elections, but doesn't anyone want to see an actual manifesto before deciding?
Where to start?
1. Jobless rate too high: With the latest Labor Department report showing the unemployment rate at 9.1%, jobs will likely remain the No. 1 issue for voters. Well over 2 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, and he wasted a trillion dollars on a stimulus bill that didn’t stimulate. Remember those "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs, the ones he admitted weren't as shovel ready as proclaimed? The money got spent, but not on infrastructure. Unfortunately for the American people, his policies will keep the jobless rate high, right up to November 2012.
2. Economy in doldrums: It’s not just jobs, but everything about the economy remains snake-bit. With housing slumping and the stock market tanking, all Americans are feeling the impact of the down economy. With the threat of a double-dip recession looming, don’t expect a turnaround in time to help Obama’s reelection.
3. ObamaCare looms: With health care costs continuing to rise *costs were supposed to be contained, remember?*, it is clear that ObamaCare wasn’t the answer. As the implementation of the highly unpopular health care measure nears, more workers will be dumped from their employers' health care plans, taxes will rise and fewer doctors will be available—giving voters more reasons to dump its architect. If the universal health care is so critical why are the costs upfront and the healthcare not available till 2014?
4. Out-of-control debt and credit downgrade: The debt-ceiling deal did little to fix the long-term debt problem, as the U.S. is still on tap to borrow $7 trillion over the next decade, adding to the $4 trillion Obama has already racked up since taking office. With the S&P downgrade, Obama goes down in history as the first President to lose America’s AAA credit rating.
5. Depressed base: Progressives are having buyer’s remorse and are trying to convince everyone that Obama is not even much of a liberal. The anti-war left certainly won’t be out in force on Election Day. Nor will black turnout match 2008’s historical number. More of the young will stay home. The excitement of electing the first black President has worn off and even his staunchest supporters are disappointed that Obama hasn’t fulfilled their expectations.
6. Opposition energized: The Tea Party didn’t even exist in 2008, and the 2010 midterm elections showed the country rejects the President’s big-spending policies. No matter which Republican gains the party’s nomination, expect an energized grassroots opposition to Obama’s second term.
7. Changes in battleground states: The terrain that Obama faces in his reelection bid will be more difficult to navigate in 2012 than four years ago. He starts out by losing six Electoral College votes from states he carried in 2008 due to population changes registered by the 2010 Census. Then the 2010 midterm elections saw Republicans win governors’ races previously held by Democrats in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan—all states Obama won in 2008.
8. Foreign policy mess: From the Libyan war to mixed signals given to Middle East protesters, from the Russian “reset” to China’s economic belligerence, there is not much that Obama can tout as a foreign policy success. Now with deficit hawks setting their sights on the Pentagon, Obama is likely to preside over the dismantling of America’s superpower status.
9. Media less a adoring: Obama will still have most of the media on his side for his reelection bid, but they certainly won’t be getting thrills up their legs, admiring the crease in his pants, or writing how the seagulls were awed. Even Obamaphile Chris Mathhews has turned on the President, saying a recent Obama speech sounded like a Fox News commercial, a harsh epithet coming from the MSNBC host.
10. Aloof, inept: Now that America has seen the President up close for nearly three years, the magic that many believed in during his hope and change odyssey is clearly gone. His aloof personality and scolding partisanship will not endear him to the electorate this time. As his falling approval ratings attest, he increasingly looks pathetically inept and not up to the job he was elected to do. He's a community organizer, not an effective leader. He has no real understanding of economics or finance. As a result he deferred to the "experts," who just happened to be Wall Street cronies and insiders who easily swayed the President with their hobgoblin stories of financial meltdown and ruin if we didn't "save the banking sector from losses."
Obama has no positive record to run on. His only viable option will be character assassination and blaming others, that won't fly well this time around. People vote their pocketbook. This shrinking economy and lack of jobs, coupled with rising inflation and stagnate wages for many will ensure he's a one term president.
PanzerJaeger
08-29-2011, 07:12
IMHO, it could go either way at this point. IIRC, compared to the resurgence in late '83 and '84, time is quickly running out for an Obama 'Morning in America' type economic rebound. However, as Lemur has pointed out in the past, he is still tracking closely (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx) with Reagan in the polls and far higher than Carter was.
What is really surprising is the lack of quality GOP candidates to either come forward or gain popularity with the base. There are plenty out there with great records and non-controversial personas. And yet, the party seems hell bent on nominating the most strident figure possible. As a governor, Rick Perry automatically has more credibility than congresswoman Bachmann, but he's just as flawed. His record has already been taken apart, he cannot keep his mouth shut, and his time in Texas promises an endless stream of negative stories that will undoubtedly intensify if he becomes the nominee.
If things continue to stagnate and the negative atmosphere persists, pretty much any candidate will have a decent shot against Obama, but does anyone really think Perry will play well in the suburbs of Columbus or Philadelphia? All the GOP needs is a vanilla candidate with a solid record (Daniels, Thune, Pawlenty) to contrast to what many see as a failed gamble on a glib but inexperienced first term senator. What the GOP wants, however, seems to be a candidate with just as many liabilities.
Strike For The South
08-29-2011, 17:24
I would not vote for Perry if you put a gun to my head
The man has alienated an entire generation of Texans
Bush is Marx next to Perry, a GOB to the freaking core.
Rick Perry is what George Bush wanted to be while he was on daddies yacht in cape cod
aimlesswanderer
08-30-2011, 00:22
What the GOP wants, however, seems to be a candidate with just as many liabilities.
The process of selecting candidates in Australia is very different and has its own problems, but the primary system in the US seems tailor made to produce extreme candidates who have to play to the party's hard core base during the primary, then rapidly 'moderate' themselves (not always possible if they're too extreme it seems) into the middle during the actual election.
And I think that having voting as optional means that the candidates can pander hard to their bases and mostly ignore roughly half the electorate, who don't vote. I know a lot of people here don't follow politics, and vote based on some extremely non rational criteria, but I think the process is less extreme and more inclusive if the politicians do have to pay at least some attention to all voters.
And seriously, Bachman a potential president? How she could possibly be even considered to be a serious candidate boggles the mind of nearly every non American who even vaguely follows what goes on over there.
Banquo's Ghost
08-30-2011, 13:52
So, which of the fiscal conservatives apparently seeking the GOP nomination will be the first to guarantee there will be no more pointless wars that run up huge debt mountains but also waste billions because non-one can be bothered to exercise effective procurement principles?
Waste in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/us-wasted-billions-iraq-afghanistan-contracts).
"Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted through poor planning, vague and shifting requirements, inadequate competition, substandard contract management and oversight, lax accountability, weak inter-agency co-ordination, and subpar performance or outright misconduct by some contractors and federal employees. Both government and contractors need to do better," they said.
Examples of waste in the report included $40m of US money to finance a prison Iraq did not want and that was not completed, and more than $300m on a power plant in Kabul "that requires funding and technical expertise beyond the Afghan government's capabilities".
In a separate report, released on Monday, the independent Centre for Public Integrity thinktank said $140bn in defence contracts were awarded without competitive tendering last year – almost triple the sum in 2001.
One always considered that a prudent conservative, committed to small government, would include the military in this and shy from war (since it's always expensive and entirely down to government). In the same way as I have never understood how 'small government' conservatives are invariably also the people keen that government does interfere in people's social activities.
From what I gather, this is largely Ron Paul's general position? And he has no chance?
From what I gather, this is largely Ron Paul's general position? And he has no chance?
Ron who?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-30-2011, 15:53
So, which of the fiscal conservatives apparently seeking the GOP nomination will be the first to guarantee there will be no more pointless wars that run up huge debt mountains but also waste billions because non-one can be bothered to exercise effective procurement principles?
Waste in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/us-wasted-billions-iraq-afghanistan-contracts).
"Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted through poor planning, vague and shifting requirements, inadequate competition, substandard contract management and oversight, lax accountability, weak inter-agency co-ordination, and subpar performance or outright misconduct by some contractors and federal employees. Both government and contractors need to do better," they said.
Examples of waste in the report included $40m of US money to finance a prison Iraq did not want and that was not completed, and more than $300m on a power plant in Kabul "that requires funding and technical expertise beyond the Afghan government's capabilities".
In a separate report, released on Monday, the independent Centre for Public Integrity thinktank said $140bn in defence contracts were awarded without competitive tendering last year – almost triple the sum in 2001.
One always considered that a prudent conservative, committed to small government, would include the military in this and shy from war (since it's always expensive and entirely down to government). In the same way as I have never understood how 'small government' conservatives are invariably also the people keen that government does interfere in people's social activities.
From what I gather, this is largely Ron Paul's general position? And he has no chance?
Virtually none.
You are rightly pointing up a "dichotomy" in GOP thinking. GOP supporters tend to by US exceptionalists and supportive of military efforts. I think today's GOP would be a little less anxious to start an intervention, but once involved they cringe even more at the thought of cutting and running. In part this is practical -- withdrawals signal weakness to some and beget more conflict/pressure -- and in part this is ego -- we can't let some little group of ****** beat us.
Ron Paul plays well to those who are by inclination isolationist, since his framework for things would head government back to the early 20th in societal influence, pervasiveness and military spending' but does not play well with those who think we should be a world power and leading the world to democracy.
Paul gets more flack for wanting to return to the gold standard and is viewed as simply too old for the office this time around. He plays better among intellectuals than emotional responders, since he avoids feelings in assessing policy. Of course, the intellectual set is more likely to argue his points as well.
His candidacy simply won't gel.
Aimless:
Remember, regarding Bachmann, 1) a fairly openly religious stance is not as much of a detractor here in the USA as it is in most western country's, notably Europe, who take a degree of pride in being unchurched. 2) it is early, and her support is very likely to fade with Perry also appealing to that same slice of voters and Romney maintaining the advantage in money. We are a full year from the conventions and more than 120 from the first primaries -- an eternity in US politics.
Not fair or revealing, but it gave me a laugh:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/simpsons.jpg
Don Corleone
08-30-2011, 18:28
That was hysterical, Lemur.
Unfortunately, it would appear the party bosses have spoken (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/30/romney-dems-look-to-weaponize-bachmann/). Much earlier than even in 2000, the idea that time for discource and consideration are over and any further avoidance to accepting Rick Perry as the candidate indicates disloyalty to the party is being floated. Say what you want about NRO, at least they're not muzzling anybody yet.
I hate this... the primaries are 5 months out, and Fox cleverly 1) links Romney to the Democrats 2) implies that Bachman is not only unelectable, but deliberately stays in the race to weaken the 'only real candidate' who would be 3) Rick Perry is apparently now the annointed one, and the rest of us have to just hush and suck it up....
And the GOP wonders why the number of self-identified members is declining...
I still support Romney. He should stop running from Mass-Care and embrace it. The choices are simple: either 1) you let the poor, the chronically sick and the elderly (frequently the 3 terms are interchangeable) die from treatable diseases after being utter depleted of financial resources or 2) you step in to attempt to do something to manage health care costs and ensure blanket coverage. There's really not much middle ground here, when health care spending is outpacing GDP growth by 3:1.
I think a lot of the Obama Health Care package sucks, but mandatory health insurance was one of the few positives in my mind.
I still support Romney. He should stop running from Mass-Care and embrace it.
What he ought to do is state that, as the Governor of the People's Republic, he endeavored to implement a health care scheme to satisfy his constituency, well within the powers given him by said People's Republic and the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. The powers and obligations of the President of the United States are different.
Hosakawa Tito
08-30-2011, 23:55
What he ought to do is state that, as the Governor of the People's Republic, he endeavored to implement a health care scheme to satisfy his constituency, well within the powers given him by said People's Republic and the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. The powers and obligations of the President of the United States are different.
Actually, the Supreme Court just might have something to say about that 10th Amendment Commerce Clause. Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/).
aimlesswanderer
08-31-2011, 16:21
Aimless:
Remember, regarding Bachmann, 1) a fairly openly religious stance is not as much of a detractor here in the USA as it is in most western country's, notably Europe, who take a degree of pride in being unchurched. 2) it is early, and her support is very likely to fade with Perry also appealing to that same slice of voters and Romney maintaining the advantage in money. We are a full year from the conventions and more than 120 from the first primaries -- an eternity in US politics.
I know that religiousness is generally a "the more the merrier" in US politics (especially on the Republican side), but, being the cynical atheist I am, I can't help but wonder whether some of the overt religiousness is purely to win votes. Our PM is a declared atheist who is living with her unmarried partner, and a lesbian senior minister's partner is having a baby!
I, and I suspect most of the world, also wonders how Sarah Palin could possibly be considered a suitable VP or presidential candidate, for much the sames reasons as Bachman.
Fisherking
08-31-2011, 17:19
It is a little odd. A generic GOP candidate wins in phone polls but when you insert one of these yahoos names Obama wins.
Ron Paul does best, being only 2 points down. (margin of error?)
So why is it that no one thinks he can win or win the nomination?
Is it lies, propaganda, or both?
Ron Paul does best, being only 2 points down. (margin of error?)
So why is it that no one thinks he can win or win the nomination?
Is it lies, propaganda, or both?
The establishment sees him as a threat to their power, so the minions in the MSM give him no press.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-31-2011, 20:15
It is a little odd. A generic GOP candidate wins in phone polls but when you insert one of these yahoos names Obama wins.
Ron Paul does best, being only 2 points down. (margin of error?)
So why is it that no one thinks he can win or win the nomination?
Is it lies, propaganda, or both?
The answer is money. He has not raised anywhere near as much money as the more "orthodox" candidates. Money is the milk of politics.
In addition, this time around, his age is a factor. Few voters are willing to put a guy in office when he is already very near the mean age of death, and would be past that mean at the end of his first term.
Finally, he has a limited appeal to the social conservative side; coming off as too libertarian.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-31-2011, 20:21
I know that religiousness is generally a "the more the merrier" in US politics (especially on the Republican side), but, being the cynical atheist I am, I can't help but wonder whether some of the overt religiousness is purely to win votes.
Not quite "the more the merrier," as we have our cadre of anti-religionists and irreligionists here as well. However, the GOP base tends to be more overtly religious than the population at large. Is some of it "put on" by candidates to garner votes? Ayup. On the other hand, for those who really try to craft it into a selling point, there has to be a good deal of truth to it. "I am proud to be Christian," as a platform plank ends up shooting you in the foot if one cub reporter discovers that you haven't seen the inside of a church in 14 years. Since such things are fact-checked, candidates doen't usually fabricate whole cloth regarding their religiousity -- just embroider it a bit.
a completely inoffensive name
08-31-2011, 21:26
The answer is money. He has not raised anywhere near as much money as the more "orthodox" candidates. Money is the milk of politics.
This is incorrect in the context you are using it. He has raised a ton more money than any other candidate...from actual citizens. Google all his money bombs, and see how successful they were. He doesn't have anywhere near enough total money as the rest because companies and special interests don't give him anything. Ron Paul is the prime example of how things would be better with a publicly funded campaign. He gets drowned out because he cannot be controlled.
In addition, this time around, his age is a factor. Few voters are willing to put a guy in office when he is already very near the mean age of death, and would be past that mean at the end of his first term.
Ron Paul seems healthier than John McCain ever did.
Finally, he has a limited appeal to the social conservative side; coming off as too libertarian.
That's because he is 100% libertarian.
I'll tell you this, Huntsman is talking up a good tax plan (http://jon2012.com/).
Simplify The Personal Income Tax Code And Lower Rates. Rather than nibble around the edges of the existing tax code, Gov. Huntsman will introduce a revenue-neutral tax plan that eliminates all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%. Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient tax code, decreasing the burden on taxpayers.
Eliminate The Alternative Minimum Tax. Under the new simplified plan, Gov. Huntsman will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is not indexed for inflation and is penalizing an increasing number of families and small businesses.
Eliminate The Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends In Order To Eliminate The Double Taxation On Investment. Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.
Reduce The Corporate Rate From 35% To 25%. The United States cannot compete while burdened with the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world; American companies and our workers deserve a level playing field. With high unemployment, it is important that we not push corporations and capital overseas. We need employers to be based in America if they're going to provide jobs to Americans.Every GOP candidate needs to copy this or something very similar. :yes:
Crazed Rabbit
09-01-2011, 07:17
Of course the democrats will shout, endlessly, that he wants to cut taxes for the rich and for big companies.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
09-01-2011, 07:26
Of course the democrats will shout, endlessly, that he wants to cut taxes for the rich and for big companies.
CR
Because he is.
Ironside
09-01-2011, 08:56
Of course the democrats will shout, endlessly, that he wants to cut taxes for the rich and for big companies.
CR
He suggest a tax ratio of 8%, 14%, 23%, 0%. Well duh.
Or did you miss the part where the CEO gets most of his money as capital gains?
Xiahou and CR, your opinion on a consumption tax (that's also a double tax)?
Banquo's Ghost
09-01-2011, 13:02
Not quite "the more the merrier," as we have our cadre of anti-religionists and irreligionists here as well. However, the GOP base tends to be more overtly religious than the population at large. Is some of it "put on" by candidates to garner votes? Ayup. On the other hand, for those who really try to craft it into a selling point, there has to be a good deal of truth to it. "I am proud to be Christian," as a platform plank ends up shooting you in the foot if one cub reporter discovers that you haven't seen the inside of a church in 14 years. Since such things are fact-checked, candidates doen't usually fabricate whole cloth regarding their religiousity -- just embroider it a bit.
The thing is (and possibly what disturbs we Euros most) is that it's not "religiousness" per se in the GOP, but a special kind of fundamentalist Evangelical only that gains from the "religious" vote. Mr Romney's Mormon faith is considered a liability and potentially fatal to his candidacy. One suspects that a thoughtful Roman Catholic might have the same problem although the growing Hispanic vote might change that in future. A Buddhist would be toast and they would certainly try to burn a Muslim candidate on someone's lawn, even if his socially conservative opinions might be close to identical to the Evangelists' intolerance of different lifestyles. It's widely accepted that no-one who claims to be an atheist would get the nomination for either party, but that probably applies to Zoroastrians, Buddhist, Muslims, animists, Wiccans and so forth.
There's really no freedom of religion when it comes to US politics and power. If I was a US citizen, I would have no-one to vote for because I am pretty hard-line on fiscal responsibility (especially right now) and aspire to see smaller government which I prefer to draw up a set of settled regulations to protect the citizen and then get the heck out the way. I have no interest in religious fundamentalists telling me how to live my life. I don't see how social and fiscal conservatism have come to co-habit in the GOP to such damaging effect (or in truth, to the detriment of fiscal responsibility since for the last few decades, it's always been social interference and wasting money on it that has won out. Politicians just love to tell us how to behave).
Of course the democrats will shout, endlessly, that he wants to cut taxes for the rich and for big companies.
CR
Reality has a well known liberal bias.....I´d pay no attention to it.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-01-2011, 22:08
The thing is (and possibly what disturbs we Euros most) is that it's not "religiousness" per se in the GOP, but a special kind of fundamentalist Evangelical only that gains from the "religious" vote. Mr Romney's Mormon faith is considered a liability and potentially fatal to his candidacy. One suspects that a thoughtful Roman Catholic might have the same problem although the growing Hispanic vote might change that in future. A Buddhist would be toast and they would certainly try to burn a Muslim candidate on someone's lawn, even if his socially conservative opinions might be close to identical to the Evangelists' intolerance of different lifestyles. It's widely accepted that no-one who claims to be an atheist would get the nomination for either party, but that probably applies to Zoroastrians, Buddhist, Muslims, animists, Wiccans and so forth.
There's really no freedom of religion when it comes to US politics and power. If I was a US citizen, I would have no-one to vote for because I am pretty hard-line on fiscal responsibility (especially right now) and aspire to see smaller government which I prefer to draw up a set of settled regulations to protect the citizen and then get the heck out the way. I have no interest in religious fundamentalists telling me how to live my life. I don't see how social and fiscal conservatism have come to co-habit in the GOP to such damaging effect (or in truth, to the detriment of fiscal responsibility since for the last few decades, it's always been social interference and wasting money on it that has won out. Politicians just love to tell us how to behave).
Wow, but doesn't that get to the center of things. Good post.
There is a bit of a split personality in the GOP on such issues. The problem is that there is also a good deal of connection. I actually do share quite a few of the social stances promulgated by the evangelical types -- most reasonably diligent Catholics do. This is likely true of quite a few of the quiet conservative types out there. A fair cadre of evangelicals, however, are more in favor of limiting government BECAUSE they cannot use it to impose their values.
However, for me, the whole point of our Constitution as that any such concerns should be resolved at, and within, the level of the several states. In addition, on almost all issues I am very reluctant to impose my religiously-derived values on others through some form of tyranny of the majority. Doing so at a federal level would be, for me, completely inappropriate is it would contravene the 10th ammendment.
I suspect that a majority of GOPers are like me on these issues. We sometimes forget that it is equally possible to twist things around against the goals of the founders by twisting them to the right as it is to twist them to the left. It is easier for us to miss that when many of the values being put forward line up with our own -- as it is far harder for anyone to be vigilant with people and ideas who agree with us that with those we oppose.
it is far harder [...] to be vigilant with people and ideas who agree with us that with those we oppose.
Quoted for mega-Godzilla-sized truth. We are, every one of us, most vulnerable to misuse by people mouthing ideas with which we agree. Far harder to see the hidden knife when you like the box of chocolates.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2011, 01:08
Wow, but doesn't that get to the center of things. Good post.
There is a bit of a split personality in the GOP on such issues. The problem is that there is also a good deal of connection. I actually do share quite a few of the social stances promulgated by the evangelical types -- most reasonably diligent Catholics do. This is likely true of quite a few of the quiet conservative types out there. A fair cadre of evangelicals, however, are more in favor of limiting government BECAUSE they cannot use it to impose their values.
However, for me, the whole point of our Constitution as that any such concerns should be resolved at, and within, the level of the several states. In addition, on almost all issues I am very reluctant to impose my religiously-derived values on others through some form of tyranny of the majority. Doing so at a federal level would be, for me, completely inappropriate is it would contravene the 10th ammendment.
I suspect that a majority of GOPers are like me on these issues. We sometimes forget that it is equally possible to twist things around against the goals of the founders by twisting them to the right as it is to twist them to the left. It is easier for us to miss that when many of the values being put forward line up with our own -- as it is far harder for anyone to be vigilant with people and ideas who agree with us that with those we oppose.
You know what I think, increasingly?
It's the fault of the Liberals, your Constitution clearly limits the scope of the Federal Government and provides for the individual right to bear arms, but because the Liberal faction in your country resorted to "clever" Constitutional interpretation rather than altering the fabric of the document they have essentially been "leaning into the wind" since the New Deal, and that political settlement was always vulnerable as a result.
That does not mean, by any scretch, that the American Settlement neads to move to the Right, in the case of Healthcare that would just be worse than what you have now, but it does mean that, Constitutionally, the hardliners like the Tea Party have a point - which is going to make getting rid of them nigh on impossible.
Conservative judges are every bit as activist, if not more so, than liberal judges. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1995232,00.html) For example, if the SCOTUS declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, then that would have staggering implications for the federal welfare system, and more importantly, the whole of American politics and society. Also, the 2nd Amendment has until recently been understood to not protect the individual's right to bear arms, but for the states to form militias.
[T]he 2nd Amendment has until recently been understood to not protect the individual's right to bear arms, but for the states to form militias.
Oh geez, the Second Amendment has been read to mean very different things at different times. Didja know the NRA was at the forefront of supporting gun control in the 1920s? It's true (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/?single_page=true). So ... not to drag this thread into a gun control debate, but these things have different meanings, different constituencies and different politics over time.
In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. [...]
Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.
The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.”
Fisherking
09-03-2011, 18:50
Can’t we get back to talking more about the idiots running for office and leave constructional law for another thread. :bow:
Isn’t there enough to complain about with this simple topic alone? :laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2011, 20:43
Oh geez, the Second Amendment has been read to mean very different things at different times. Didja know the NRA was at the forefront of supporting gun control in the 1920s? It's true (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/?single_page=true). So ... not to drag this thread into a gun control debate, but these things have different meanings, different constituencies and different politics over time.
In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. [...]
Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.
The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.”
Here's the thing though.
Backlash, your politics is full of it. Unreasonable or unconstitutional laws have created a hardcore anti-legislative lobby in America, who barely want laws full stop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao
when you get to this level what else can I say really?
Tellos Athenaios
09-13-2011, 13:09
The charitable version would be that the hypothetical 30 year old is presented with a nice fat bill after he is discharged from IC. Of course this is really a non issue: a 30 year old with a “nice” job can afford to be taken into hospital for an emergency in the sense that he is able to financially recover from this. It's about the people who don't have a particularly “nice” job, who most definitely are not able to conjure the funds (amortized over time) to pay off a $3K/day stay at the IC* but who may be able to afford the $100 or so a month for basic coverage.
* Quick wiki search suggests a cost of £1700 per bed per day for the UK, and with the combination of the dollar being worth less than the pound and the prices being higher in the USA in general for healthcare a $3K/bed/day price tag seems as good as any ballpark figure.
Strike For The South
09-13-2011, 14:10
of course it's not that simple is it.
If the man is in a coma for 6 months you can bet your steers the insurance company will fight for every red cent. That's the problem with these 30 second sound bites.
Dunno, this is a pretty bloodthirsty primary. I haven't had a chance to watch any of the debates entire, but there was a lot of applause for Perry's history of executions in TX. Can't find raw video, but here's a clip w. commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXB8avpzMyI
Given what little I know about the TX judicial system, the notion that all 200+ of those executed people were guilty ... unlikely. At best.
-edit-
Then again, for some GOP primary voters, executing potential innocents may not be a bad thing (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/13/rick-perry-a-candidate-who-will-do-anything-to-beat-romney-and-obama.html).
[O]ne of Perry’s Republican rivals in Texas tested the Willingham issue in a focus group. One Republican man squinted and said, “Well, I like that. Takes a lot of balls to execute an innocent man.” At that moment, folks say, Perry’s rival knew opposing him was fruitless.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2011, 16:56
Oy vey.
Montmorency
09-13-2011, 23:46
One Republican man squinted and said, “Well, I like that. Takes a lot of balls to execute an innocent man.”
I don't know why, but that detail lifted my mood.
As per usual, Fareed Zakaria is very smart (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/14/republicans-reborn-the-rise-of-rick-perry/).
The forces [in the Republican party] that are strong today are Christian conservatives, libertarian activists and other more diverse, populist groups. These groups have always existed but before now they were directed by the coastal elites. Not anymore. The tea party represents the dramatic acceleration of these forces. That’s why all the Republican presidential candidates are trying to take up the mantle of the tea party.
These forces are elevating Rick Perry such that we may end up with a situation where all the energy, enthusiasm and numbers are behind him. It would not matter that the Republican establishment was behind Romney because that establishment no longer controls much. What matters is the entrepreneurial game of getting people and money. Perry seems to be doing pretty well at that.
If Rick Perry does emerge as the front-runner, it is not just the story of one guy doing well; it is the story of a very different Republican Party than the one we have been familiar with for the last 30 or 40 years.
ICantSpellDawg
09-16-2011, 12:00
The last nomination mitt romney used to show gop voters that he was a conservative, im pleased that he is running as a northeastern moderate this time. I could vote for perry if he was the nominee, but I hope that more or romneys pragmatism rubs off on him. The epic back peddling on social security will help him.Republicans are frustratingly daft when it comes to working policy, that's why we lose elections. We need guys like romney who aren't afraid of supporting new ideas that work alongsid basic constitutional protections. I hope republicans are as wary as I am I of shoot from the gut texans at this point.
ICantSpellDawg
09-16-2011, 12:04
I'll tell you this, Huntsman is talking up a good tax plan (http://jon2012.com/).Every GOP candidate needs to copy this or something very similar. :yes:Plus one. Perfect
Banquo's Ghost
09-16-2011, 12:48
I find it quite difficult to understand the mindset of people who call themselves Christian and attend some sort of service where the Gospels are read, yet find themselves cheering that people should die for lack of charity.
Next up, paying off the deficit by charging pay-per-view auto-da-fé?
I find it quite difficult to understand the mindset of people who call themselves Christian and attend some sort of service where the Gospels are read, yet find themselves cheering that people should die for lack of charity.
Next up, paying off the deficit by charging pay-per-view auto-da-fé?
it works like this because people build their own religion by Cherri-picking the parts they want to hear and mixing in their own prejudices...
then a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance helps stir it all together.....in the end it's about what they want to justify....not about what some dude supposedly said 2000 years ago.
about your next up....George Carlin had a similar idea...his was about jails and executions......it can be adapted...then you put on PPV and balance the budget! :P
warning: some harsh language.... but come on it's Carlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw
A nice win for Huntsman (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110916/NEWS0605/709169993).
Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman will announce the endorsement of former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Gov. Tom Ridge Friday in an event at St. Anselm College in Goffstown.
Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania, plans to attend a press conference with Huntsman at the college’s New Hampshire Institute for Politics.
In a statement by the Huntsman campaign, Ridge said Thursday that Huntsman is “a serious, insightful leader.” [...] Ridge was appointed as the first secretary of Homeland Security by President George W. Bush. During the last presidential campaign he worked to support Sen. John McCain.
Strike For The South
09-16-2011, 18:13
Dunno, this is a pretty bloodthirsty primary. I haven't had a chance to watch any of the debates entire, but there was a lot of applause for Perry's history of executions in TX. Can't find raw video, but here's a clip w. commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXB8avpzMyI
Given what little I know about the TX judicial system, the notion that all 200+ of those executed people were guilty ... unlikely. At best.
-edit-
Then again, for some GOP primary voters, executing potential innocents may not be a bad thing (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/13/rick-perry-a-candidate-who-will-do-anything-to-beat-romney-and-obama.html).
[O]ne of Perry’s Republican rivals in Texas tested the Willingham issue in a focus group. One Republican man squinted and said, “Well, I like that. Takes a lot of balls to execute an innocent man.” At that moment, folks say, Perry’s rival knew opposing him was fruitless.
Heh Texas has had 43 EXONERATIONS since 2002
It's terrible
a completely inoffensive name
09-16-2011, 21:31
I liked the part in the Tea Party debate when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul, "Should society let a coma patient without insurance die?" and a handful of people of cheered, "YEAAAAH!" "YES!"
The height of the empire complete with those that would frequent a modern Colosseum if there was one.
PanzerJaeger
09-17-2011, 02:43
I find it quite difficult to understand the mindset of people who call themselves Christian and attend some sort of service where the Gospels are read, yet find themselves cheering that people should die for lack of charity.
Next up, paying off the deficit by charging pay-per-view auto-da-fé?
If I were to guess, I would say they were reacting more to the motivations of the questioner than the actual question. Sarah Palin calls them "Gotcha Questions", and while she uses the term far too liberally to get out of talking-point-challenging questions, they do exist. Ron Paul has some pretty intense supporters, and from what I can tell, they've grown very tired of reporters taking his limited government ideology to extremes he has never advocated to make him look bat :daisy: crazy.
You'd never see Wolf Blitzer ask President Obama in a debate: "If there is a house in Pakistan with 20 women and children in it and one important terrorist plotting against America, would you murder those women and children to kill the terrorist?" It's a question without a good answer, and sure to make the answerer look bad.
That doesn't mean Blitzer had to avoid the very real implications of the question. "If you want to scrap Medicare, Congressman Paul, what would become of all those seniors that cannot afford basic medical care?" He could have then gone on to talk about the importance of personal responsibility, family, charity, and community and voters could have made up their mind whether they agreed with his stance. Instead, Wolf went for sensationalism - "Would you let him die, sir!" :stare:
You'd never see Wolf Blitzer ask President Obama in a debate: "If there is a house in Pakistan with 20 women and children in it and one important terrorist plotting against America, would you murder those women and children to kill the terrorist?" It's a question without a good answer, and sure to make the answerer look bad.
to even pretend that the terrorist scenario is in any way similar or equivalent to "would you let a man in dire need of medical assistance die" is a joke.
in a civilized society there are gray areas that can be debated....the way you wage war is one of them.......to let a person die when it is easily avoidable is not debatable IMO.
this wasn´t a "gotcha question" (that to Palin goes up to "what time is it" I think)...this was a soft-ball.....a question with only one reasonable answer could not be qualified as anything else.
PanzerJaeger
09-20-2011, 15:57
this wasn´t a "gotcha question" (that to Palin goes up to "what time is it" I think)...this was a soft-ball.....a question with only one reasonable answer could not be qualified as anything else.
I disagree. The question condensed and distorted libertarian ideology to a ridiculous extreme. It was insulting, especially considering the man has taken the Hippocratic Oath, and characteristic of a press corps that refuses to take him seriously. My point is that it seemed like, to me at least, that the reaction (by all of three people) was more about the implications of the question instead of the question itself. It seemed to be pretty typical 'circle the wagons' behavior. The doctor is there to talk about the size and scope of government, and he gets asked if he would let someone die in a coma...
a completely inoffensive name
09-21-2011, 04:59
I disagree. The question condensed and distorted libertarian ideology to a ridiculous extreme. It was insulting, especially considering the man has taken the Hippocratic Oath, and characteristic of a press corps that refuses to take him seriously. My point is that it seemed like, to me at least, that the reaction (by all of three people) was more about the implications of the question instead of the question itself. It seemed to be pretty typical 'circle the wagons' behavior. The doctor is there to talk about the size and scope of government, and he gets asked if he would let someone die in a coma...
You have just completely missed the point and instead immediately took an emotional "outraged" stance. "How could they ask a doctor if he would let someone die!?!"
Fact is, the question is a perfectly fine type of question that is actually needed for all candidates in any position of power. Ron Paul believes strongly in his Libertarian ideology. How far does he want to take it? That is what is being asked here. No distortion. When you go out and tell the public that *this* is the line that you draw for government you need to own up to questions about situations that have that line being crossed.
He states that people should choose to have health insurance or not.
Blitzer then wants to take that libertarian ideology into real life by bringing up the example of the healthy 30 year old man who runs into some bad luck and ends up in a coma.
Ron Paul in case you didn't notice actually dodges the question by not tacking the situation at hand and doesn't go on to say, "ok well here is how I would like the situation to play out to the benefit of the man in the coma without massive government intervention". No, instead he makes a blanket campaign slogan about how "freedom is about taking risks".
At this point Blitzer has no other way to get Dr. Paul to apply his libertarian ideals in a situation that is all too common in American society (health care treatment without insurance), except in the most blunt way possible. "What happens to him? Do we let him die?"
Paul says no but get shouted over by the Tea Party libertarians who apparently believe that as Americans we all have the right to die when we make a personal financial mistake.
That imo was the best question of the night, because it gets down to what Ron Paul is about better than any other policy question. Do you have the balls to take your ideology to its logical conclusion in real life applications. These are the types of questions that all politicians of all political spectrum should be asked. Anything less than this, is a softball question. Americans have no clue what the **** a tough question is and instead any question that makes who they like look bad is labeled a gotcha question. It's ridiculous.
PanzerJaeger
09-21-2011, 07:11
You have just completely missed the point and instead immediately took an emotional "outraged" stance. "How could they ask a doctor if he would let someone die!?!"
Your exclamation points, not mine.
At this point Blitzer has no other way to get Dr. Paul to apply his libertarian ideals in a situation that is all too common in American society (health care treatment without insurance), except in the most blunt way possible. "What happens to him? Do we let him die?"
Paul says no but get shouted over by the Tea Party libertarians who apparently believe that as Americans we all have the right to die when we make a personal financial mistake.
That imo was the best question of the night, because it gets down to what Ron Paul is about better than any other policy question. Do you have the balls to take your ideology to its logical conclusion in real life applications.
But that isn't the logical conclusion of Paul's ideology, which Blitzer would have known if he had spent five minutes on research. Paul is actually not all that libertarian when it comes to health care. In his hypothetical administration, health care would be so heavily subsidized that not having it would have to be a conscious choice, not an economic hardship.
These are the types of questions that all politicians of all political spectrum should be asked. Anything less than this, is a softball question. Americans have no clue what the **** a tough question is and instead any question that makes who they like look bad is labeled a gotcha question. It's ridiculous.
Ignoring the implicit distortion, the question crossed over from the intellectual to the emotional and substituted policy discussion for sensationalism. It is exactly the kind of immature, dumbed down question that has no place in a 'debate' where candidates are given less than 10 minutes total split into 1-2 minute responses to explain their policy proposals to the voters. It's a much darker version of "Coke or Pepsi", and reflects the unfortunate reality that in today's America a "tough question" equates to gross oversimplification of very complex positions.
I would have much preferred to hear Paul explain how his tax credits for health insurance premiums proposal is substantively different than any other government subsidized healthcare scheme. That probably would have taken more than two minutes to explain and doesn't involve the candidate literally pulling the plug on a coma victim, so I guess it's not hardcore enough.
This is what tough questions used to look like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMzTcvXk1j4&feature=related
a completely inoffensive name
09-21-2011, 07:43
But that isn't the logical conclusion of Paul's ideology, which Blitzer would have known if he had spent five minutes on research.
That Paul's job to let the public know and it is Blitzer's job to ask him if it is.
Ignoring the implicit distortion, the question crossed over from the intellectual to the emotional and substituted policy discussion for sensationalism. It is exactly the kind of immature, dumbed down question that has no place in a 'debate' where candidates are given less than 10 minutes total split into 1-2 minute responses to explain their policy proposals to the voters. It's a much darker version of "Coke or Pepsi", and reflects the unfortunate reality that in today's America a "tough question" equates to gross oversimplification of very complex positions.
These are just words. "ignoring the implicit distortion", no you need to bring up what the distortion was, instead of passing it off as "fact" and then finishing with your opinion once again. What you have said makes no sense either. Darker version of coke or pepsi? Do you even understand why coke vs pepsi is a joke question? It's because there is no underlying importance about it. The question Blitzer is asking is a fundamental philosophical question that america needs to answer.
If you want more time for your candidates, maybe you shouldn't have 8 of them up there with only an hour and 45 min to talk.
I would have much preferred to hear Paul explain how his tax credits for health insurance premiums proposal is substantively different than any other government subsidized healthcare scheme. That probably would have taken more than two minutes to explain and doesn't involve the candidate literally pulling the plug on a coma victim, so I guess it's not hardcore enough.
It doesn't matter what you wanted to hear him talk about. The point was to ask him, "if the government doesn't provide for the uninsured, what happens to patients?" That is a legit question to ask given his libertarian ideology and because he dodged the question the first time around, Blitzer had to be blunt about it the second time.
This is what tough questions used to look like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMzTcvXk1j4&feature=related
From the video @4:25:
"Do you believe that killing millions of civilians was a mistake?"
You just proved my point.
PanzerJaeger
09-21-2011, 09:18
That Paul's job to let the public know and it is Blitzer's job to ask him if it is.
Blitzer's job is to ask insightful questions that probe the candidate's various positions on relevant public policy positions, not to throw out simplified hypothetical questions that have no bearing on the candidate's positions, or at least it should be. In actuality, his job is to draw ratings, which explains the kindergarten questions designed for maximum drama and minimum information.
These are just words.
Ok, I drew you a picture. :shrug:
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/RonPaulDebate2.png
"ignoring the implicit distortion", no you need to bring up what the distortion was, instead of passing it off as "fact" and then finishing with your opinion once again.
I already outlined the distortion. The question presented a depiction of Paul's libertarianism that has no basis in reality.
Do you even understand why coke vs pepsi is a joke question? It's because there is no underlying importance about it.
Exactly.
The question Blitzer is asking is a fundamental philosophical question that america needs to answer.
That is your idea a fundamental philosophical question America needs to answer? It would be nice if this nation had the luxury to entertain such nonsense, but there are far more pressing issues our candidates need to be addressing.:laugh4:
If you want more time for your candidates, maybe you shouldn't have 8 of them up there with only an hour and 45 min to talk.
I don't make the rules. :shrug:
It doesn't matter what you wanted to hear him talk about. The point was to ask him, "if the government doesn't provide for the uninsured, what happens to patients?" That is a legit question to ask given his libertarian ideology and because he dodged the question the first time around, Blitzer had to be blunt about it the second time.
He did not dodge the question. He attempted to relay a complex ideological position within the context of an oversimplified hypothetical, which didn't satisfy Blitzer who was intent on getting the money shot.
From the video @4:25:
"Do you believe that killing millions of civilians was a mistake?"
You just proved my point.
Not at all. If you cannot see the substantive differences between the two exchanges, I suppose I'll have to draw another picture...
a completely inoffensive name
09-21-2011, 09:43
Blitzer's job is to ask insightful questions that probe the candidate's various positions on relevant public policy positions, not to throw out simplified hypothetical questions that have no bearing on the candidate's positions, or at least it should be. In actuality, his job is to draw ratings, which explains the kindergarten questions designed for maximum drama and minimum information.
It ain't hypothetical, and it does have bearing on their positions if they are advocating an ideology where if you don't have the money, or if you take the risk of not buying health insurance, an unlucky occurrence can and will kill you.
Ok, I drew you a picture. :shrug:
Picture shows you didn't watch the debate. Because you forgot to put in the part where Blitzer asked the question the first time around and Dr. Paul dodged it by saying, "Freedom is all about taking risks."
I already outlined the distortion. The question presented a depiction of Paul's libertarianism that has no basis in reality.
Then Paul needs to correct it. Like it or not there are libertarians that would like to see those without health insurance die from their bad "risk taking". They made themselves known at that debate. Why should the public just assume that isn't what Paul is unless you get him to say so on camera, with his followers right there in front of him.
That is your idea a fundamental philosophical question America needs to answer? It would be nice if this nation had the luxury to entertain such nonsense, but there are far more pressing issues our candidates need to be addressing.:laugh4:
You are disconnected from reality since the question of "what is the gov/society's role for the uninsured?" is literally the core debate that makes up the entire Health Care ****storm we have seen. The 8 month battle in Congress to get health care reform passed, the ubiquity of the term "Obamacare", the fact that every. single. GOP. candidate says a million times how Obamacare is terrible shows how this is a question that America has not yet decided on, and it actually is a big one. This is about life and death of the individual and what the gov/society role is and you dismiss it as luxury? You are a fool.
He did not dodge the question. He attempted to relay a complex ideological position within the context of an oversimplified hypothetical, which didn't satisfy Blitzer who was intent on getting the money shot.
"freedom is all about taking risks." is not attempting to relay a complex ideological position within the context of an oversimplified hypothetical. And this is clearly a false assertion from get go, because anybody who takes the time to listen to Ron Paul speak knows that when he wants to convey an idea, he takes his time with explaining it and doesn't go into sound bites. Example is from the Reagan Library debate, when he wanted to make the point about inflation and went over. Or back in the 2008 elections when he would frequently go into the history of US-Iran relations back to the 1950s in detail in order to make the point clear about why Iran should be left alone. It was one of the few times that he tried to dodge the question because the libertarian stance on the uninsured is not palatable for many people.
Not at all. If you cannot see the substantive differences between the two exchanges, I suppose I'll have to draw another picture...
Try to remember to draw in the context this time as well.
Picture shows you didn't watch the debate. Because you forgot to put in the part where Blitzer asked the question the first time around and Dr. Paul dodged it by saying, "Freedom is all about taking risks."
he also forgot the part where several voters instead of going all frowny face actually shouted out 'yeah let him die'....small details like that.
Crazed Rabbit
09-23-2011, 03:26
I can tolerate all the nominees in the debate tonight - except I just want to punch Santorum in the face, especially after his answer to the gays in the military question.
CR
PanzerJaeger
09-23-2011, 07:04
You are a fool.
I think I'll stop here and cede the point.
a completely inoffensive name
09-23-2011, 07:19
I think I'll stop here and cede the point.
High road eh? Well if you are not willing to get in the mud with me, I will just slop around by myself.
Cecil XIX
09-23-2011, 08:00
Ron Paul in case you didn't notice actually dodges the question by not tacking the situation at hand and doesn't go on to say, "ok well here is how I would like the situation to play out to the benefit of the man in the coma without massive government intervention". No, instead he makes a blanket campaign slogan about how "freedom is about taking risks".
Although I do not generally agree with ACIN on this issue, here he makes a valid point. In a healthy society, the hypothetical thirty-year old would be taken care of by friends, family, charitable organizations, religious institutions etc. The work being done to help him would be entirely voluntary. The people would be able to solve this problem more efficiently and with greater success then if handled by the government. Actions such as this would reduce dependency on government, as well as increase skepticism of government power. This is why, incidentally, the Obama Administration wanted to reduce the tax credit for charitable contributions.
Also,
gov/society
This illustrates the difficulty in discussing this issue. To conservatives, linking the State and Society like this as if they were interchangeable entities is simply wrong, morally and factually.
Ironside
09-23-2011, 09:28
Although I do not generally agree with ACIN on this issue, here he makes a valid point. In a healthy society, the hypothetical thirty-year old would be taken care of by friends, family, charitable organizations, religious institutions etc. The work being done to help him would be entirely voluntary. The people would be able to solve this problem more efficiently and with greater success then if handled by the government. Actions such as this would reduce dependency on government, as well as increase skepticism of government power. This is why, incidentally, the Obama Administration wanted to reduce the tax credit for charitable contributions.
Honestly, do expect that to even work systematically above a small village level (or to be more exact, above were the single community is the most important thing. Notice that it conflicts with induvidualism)?
Friends got their own life, even when they're helpful, so you probably would need a dozen of so really close ones, family can be unable to help, dead or jerks (you don't pick those), charity (I'll combine it with religious ones, they might require creed though) relies on people's generosity of time and money (unpredicable) and at best starts to remind of a state run organisation when becoming larger anyway.
For example, the state would not need to start advertising to increase the income.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_9WxAEGY8c&feature=player_embedded
Best quote (http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/23/rick-perrys-salvia-moment) so far: "[I]f you can't slap Mitt Romney silly for being a flip-flopping used car salesman, you can't win the GOP presidential nomination."
a completely inoffensive name
09-24-2011, 07:52
This illustrates the difficulty in discussing this issue. To conservatives, linking the State and Society like this as if they were interchangeable entities is simply wrong, morally and factually.
A democratic government is in theory an extension of the society it governs. They influence each other and are tied together through moral and legal bonds. Anyone who wants to state that a society can be without a government and that a government can exist without a society is simply delusional. This has been shown numerous times throughout history that states of anarchy are not havens for liberty. Hobbes quite adequately talks about the state of nature and although I have not read him but simply have listened to lectures about him, it seems pretty clear that he recognizes that the state of nature is brutal, thugish and completely opposite to the goals of attaining liberty.
Libertarians want to deny this as if it is somehow a threat to individualism. But on the contrary it has been government in many ways that gives us our freedom. Without it, there are no property rights (at least on an enforceable level). Anarchy provides no right to free speech, only the ability to speak until someone who dislikes what you say kills you. Yes, obviously government can do the same. But it is only from having a government prohibited in its actions towards the society that free speech truly exists.
Gov and society are distinct but in a symbiotic relationship with each other. There are ebbs and flows and depending on the needs and wants of the society the line changes on how far they cross into each others territory. All domestic policy ultimately comes down to this.
PanzerJaeger
09-25-2011, 22:26
Finally found some time to watch the latest debate. Some random thoughts:
- I really enjoyed the last Fox News debate. It actually seemed like the more mature of the three - tough questions, less gimmicks, and good moderation. No doubt Bret Baier had a lot of input in setting it all up. He's the only reason I still tune into Fox. This one? Not so much... I don't know if it was Google's influence or if the ratings were weak for the last one, but the bling came out and the questions seemed to be aimed at an audience with a slightly lower IQ. 'Is Obama a socialist or just a really bad person?' Seriously? And there's nothing worse in a debate than a prepackaged video question from a 'real person'. Hate that gimmick.
-What happened to Michelle Bachmann? She looked tired and haggard and had pretty much nothing to say.
-Rick Perry. Wow. I don't think the completely nonsensical question responses will hurt him as much as the immigration issue. He's supposed to be the ultra conservative alternative to Romney, but by the end of the debate he looked like a flower child by comparison - imploring the others to have a heart! Romney would be wise to pursue that over the social security angle.
-Barack Obama will not be able to talk circles around Mitt Romney like he did with John McCain, if the former does end up with the nomination. The man has some serious debatin' skillz. Even though I know he'll say what he needs to say to get the nomination and he probably doesn't believe half the things he did say, he kind of won me over.
-Yay! for Gary Johnson. He kind of underwhelmed just a bit, but its good to have a younger libertarian on the stage. Ron Paul seems to be having a harder time making crisp, concise points as he has gotten older. He made headlines the other day for claiming that he did not create one job as governor of New Mexico. It made me smile.
-Newt Gingrich doesn't need to be president, but he's enjoyable to watch in a debate.
-Liked: Huntsman, Johnson, & Romney. Disliked: Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. The others were generally forgettable.
The most recent polling (http://www.winthrop.edu/winthroppoll/default.aspx?id=9804&ekmensel=fee512e3_566_0_9804_3) of registered voters in SC. Takeaways:
Among Republicans/Republican leaners, 74.7% feel the term “socialist” describes President Obama very well or well.
Among Republicans/Republican leaners, almost 30% believe President Obama is a Muslim. Among Republicans/Republican leaners, 36% continue to believe the president was either probably, or definitely, born in another country.
Even though a long-form birth certificate for the president was produced between the Winthrop April 2011 Poll and now—showing he was born in Hawaii—just 5.2% fewer respondents now believe Obama was born outside the country than those back in April (36% now vs. 41.2 % in April).
Samurai Waki
09-26-2011, 18:38
I think the narrative plays out rather well considering SC is one of the worst performers in edumacation. (http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/september/state-education-ranking-shows-vermont-1-south-carolina-last)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_9WxAEGY8c&feature=player_embedded
That was just painful to watch, one gets the feeling Perry would fall for the "duck season, wabbit season" trick. If his fellow candidates don't Dean him with this vid, they are incompetent boobs who deserve to lose to Obama.
Sorry Strike, I think you are stuck with Perry for the foreseeable future.
Rick Perry. Wow. I don't think the completely nonsensical question responses will hurt him as much as the immigration issue. He's supposed to be the ultra conservative alternative to Romney, but by the end of the debate he looked like a flower child by comparison - imploring the others to have a heart! Romney would be wise to pursue that over the social security angle.
It would appear Mr. Romney is no dummy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCGgDSW6bzM
PanzerJaeger
09-29-2011, 05:07
It would appear Mr. Romney is no dummy:
Damning stuff in a GOP primary...
Anybody catch Christie's speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_MB_czMT_1E#!
Pretty good, and surprisingly independent and forward looking (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-heresies-of-chris-christie/245818/)...
Speeches delivered at the Reagan Library must praise President Reagan, zing Barack Obama, and assert the greatness of the United States. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hit all those notes Tuesday night. But he also made four key assertions that are now heretical within the Republican Party, and the significance of his speech is almost entirely wrapped up in those passages of politely stated dissent.
1. Compromise is core to politics, a necessary characteristic of good leadership, and the only way to solve problems. This is anathema to a lot of the conservative movement, who regard compromise as tantamount to selling out principle, and support candidates like Michele Bachmann precisely because of their reputation for being stubbornly uncompromising.
2. American exceptionalism isn't a natural state of being or an inheritance -- it is something to which we aspire, and we're presently falling short. "For American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted," he said. "Unfortunately, through our own domestic political conduct of late, we have failed to live up to our own tradition of exceptionalism. Today, our role and ability to affect change has been diminished because of our own problems and our inability to effectively deal with them." Contrast that with Marco Rubio's recent speech at the Reagan Library, where American exceptionalism was cast as self-evident due to wars we'd won against Nazis and Communists, people we'd freed in decades past -- it was, Rubio said, "our legacy as a people."
3. Americans should care what foreigners think of us. The world is watching when our politics is mired in dysfunctional infighting and stubborn refusal to compromise, he noted, and "There is no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working."
4. Americans cannot remake the world in our image through force. "We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion," he said. "Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home - foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come." Does Bill Kristol still want him to run?
What's interesting about these heresies is that none are a particularly groundbreaking insight, but all are fighting words on today's right. That's why, even though Gov. Christie isn't running for president, he warrants a place in the national public discourse. Conservatives would do well to grapple with his words.
Favorite lines:
Today, the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves. To not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of accomplishment. To not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths. To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other. We are a better people than that; and we must demand a better nation than that.
Now, seven years later, President Obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve re-election. This is not a leadership style, this is a re-election strategy. Telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. Trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard. Insisting that we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream. That may turn out to be a good re-election strategy for President Obama, but is a demoralizing message for America. What happened to State Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the "dividers" he spoke of so eloquently in 2004?
Romney continues to kick butt and take names. He's a very smart dude. Among other things, he has refrained from the red-meat OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST stuff, instead attacking Prez 44 on a policy front, which I think is the only sane way to win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7qENAbpMM0A
Also, I recognize that background music but can't place it. Was it taken from a game or something?
I recognise that music. What is it?
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 01:41
That's the music that "Media Matters" uses in their videos.
Romney continues to kick butt and take names. He's a very smart dude. Among other things, he has refrained from the red-meat OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST stuff, instead attacking Prez 44 on a policy front, which I think is the only sane way to win.
Reminds me of the situation in Britain with Scotland. Apparently if you are from Poland for example, you get a big discount because of EU rulings, but if you are from England, there is no such rulings because it is part of "Britain", therefore it is classed as 'same country' or similar, thus the exception can apply.
I like the fact that he attacks Obama on policy rather than calling him out for being a "liberal" and calling him the antichrist, but it seems to me like he's trying to feed off of the tea party hate for illegal immigrants, which is just as bad. I'm assuming that an illegal immigrant receiving in-state tuition in Texas would have to be a resident of Texas, and wouldn't be able to receive in-state tuition in another state. So his position doesn't even make sense.
That's the music that "Media Matters" uses in their videos.
Huh
I don't under
What
I mean
did anyone see Real Time with Bill Maher last night? he had a great bit about the GOP candidate process.
the question is, could even Jesus Christ get on the ticket?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg
a completely inoffensive name
10-01-2011, 19:41
Huh
I don't under
What
I mean
Example: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201109300004
I know what mediamatters is, I'm just gobsmacked that they and Romney are using the same music.
Centurion1
10-04-2011, 16:55
illegal immigration is illegal. there is nothing "racist" or wrong about wanting immigrants to come to the country legally.
A couple of my uncles who are mexican immigrants hate illegals because its a pain in the ass for legal immigrants as well as making it harder for them and they see what they did as taking a short cut to get to the US
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2011, 22:17
The law is unenforcable without draining our treasury any more. We need a different solution than sticking to the hardline, "illegal = not tolerable" notion here. Nation of laws depends on a majority of people personally adhering to the rule of law. This isn't the case I would say.
Montmorency
10-05-2011, 00:31
What about this guy's claims (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83): that we'd be in the money if all restrictions to labor mobility were eliminated?
What is the greatest single class of distortions in the global economy? One contender for this title is the tightly binding constraints on emigration from poor countries. Vast numbers of people in low-income countries want to emigrate from those countries but cannot. How large are the economic losses caused by barriers to emigration? Research on this question has been distinguished by its rarity and obscurity, but the few estimates we have should make economists' jaws hit their desks. The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital. When it comes to policies that restrict emigration, there appear to be trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.
illegal immigration is illegal. there is nothing "racist" or wrong about wanting immigrants to come to the country legally.
A couple of my uncles who are mexican immigrants hate illegals because its a pain in the ass for legal immigrants as well as making it harder for them and they see what they did as taking a short cut to get to the US
I'm not saying that it's bad to want to stop illegal immigration. I'm just saying that there are those on the right wing that are vocal about the issue for no other reason than that they don't like illegal immigrants, and that Romney is trying to pander to those people.
Double A
10-06-2011, 05:20
Wheee multiquote
Damning stuff in a GOP primary...
Anybody catch Christie's speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_MB_czMT_1E#!
Pretty good, and surprisingly independent and forward looking (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-heresies-of-chris-christie/245818/)...
Favorite lines:
Now, seven years later, President Obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve re-election. This is not a leadership style, this is a re-election strategy. Telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. Trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard. Insisting that we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream. That may turn out to be a good re-election strategy for President Obama, but is a demoralizing message for America. What happened to State Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the "dividers" he spoke of so eloquently in 2004?
Today, the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves. To not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of accomplishment. To not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths. To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other. We are a better people than that; and we must demand a better nation than that.
Awesome quotes are awesome, but what does he plan on doing about it exactly?
Romney continues to kick butt and take names. He's a very smart dude. Among other things, he has refrained from the red-meat OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST stuff, instead attacking Prez 44 on a policy front, which I think is the only sane way to win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7qENAbpMM0A
Also, I recognize that background music but can't place it. Was it taken from a game or something?
*GASP* An actual argument? This must be the sign of one of the apocalypses!
Anyway, that's a very good point. Illegal immigrant means, well, illegally here. Why should we then give them money for committing a crime? That's freaking stupid. We don't need to be hardasses about it, but we don't need to pull down our trousers and bend over either.
did anyone see Real Time with Bill Maher last night? he had a great bit about the GOP candidate process.
the question is, could even Jesus Christ get on the ticket?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg
I love hypocrisy. And Bill Maher. It's interesting how all of the funniest political commentators/satirists are liberal...
The law is unenforcable without draining our treasury any more. We need a different solution than sticking to the hardline, "illegal = not tolerable" notion here. Nation of laws depends on a majority of people personally adhering to the rule of law. This isn't the case I would say.
Maybe if there was only some way to cut back on spending that encourages illegal immigrants to come to the US. Wait, that sounds familiar...
Still, you're right. Short of a serious upgrade in, well, everything, it's impossible to control the flow of illegals as much as some people want. That doesn't mean we need to pay them money if they do come over.
What should be done is easier green cards, I guess. I'm tired now, so Imma go to sleep. Also, I like how there's basically no news on Ron Paul in the month or so I neglected this thread.
I love hypocrisy. And Bill Maher. It's interesting how all of the funniest political commentators/satirists are liberal...
To quote Colbert: 'Reality has a well-known liberal bias'
Double A
10-06-2011, 12:27
We should totally bring back an abundance of constitutional and absolute monarchies for the free market. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/images/smilies/emoticons/mellow.gif
CountArach
10-07-2011, 08:47
I love hypocrisy. And Bill Maher. It's interesting how all of the funniest political commentators/satirists are liberal...
There is no humour to be found in affirming the status quo.
a completely inoffensive name
10-08-2011, 06:55
In other news, Sarah Palin exposed her self as a scam artist. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/07/jon-stewart-palin-swindle-of-donor-money-in-nigerian-prince-territory/
Sasaki Kojiro
10-08-2011, 07:45
In other news, Sarah Palin exposed her self as a scam artist. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/07/jon-stewart-palin-swindle-of-donor-money-in-nigerian-prince-territory/
Is that one of those leadership pacs?
For people who love golf, the chance to play at the five-star Greenbrier resort in West Virginia is a dream come true. Especially if someone else pays for it.
That was the case this summer for two powerful members of Congress, House Republican Minority leader John Boehner of Ohio and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
Accompanied by top corporate lobbyists , the two golf-loving Republicans spent a luxurious weekend at the Greenbrier, the kinds of cozy gatherings new ethics reform laws were supposed to curb.
"You're seeing the quintessential Washington insider pay-to-play game," said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.
Many people assumed these types of outings were ended when Congress passed reforms in 2007. But those reforms didn't mention what has come to be an important source of funding for politicians: leadership political action committees, or PACs, whose money can be spent for almost any purpose, including golf.
ABC News
House Minority Leader John Boehner's PAC... View Full Caption
Members of Congress are supposed to use their leadership PAC funds to support other politicians. But in the 2008 election cycle, Chambliss spent more money from his PAC on golf outings, $225,000, than on donations to other political campaigns, $204,000. On Capitol Hill, his leadership PAC is known to some as a golf PAC.
Click here to see ProPublica's database and find your congressman's leadership PAC.
Chambliss declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a statement he said he holds the golf outings only to raise money.
A spokesman for Boehner's PAC, The Freedom Project, also defended the spending as legitimate and said that through his PAC, he contributed "more than any other Republican in the House."
McGehee and others call leadership PACs modern-day slush funds. Some members of Congress use them for pretty much whatever they want, including subsidizing their lifestyles and hobbies.
In a joint report with the investigative journalism group ProPublica, ABC News found that members of Congress used leadership PAC money to pay for visits to ski resorts, casinos, Disney World and the Super Bowl. Senate Majority Harry Reid of Nevada used leadership PAC money to throw a $39,000 inaugural party. New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel ordered a $64,000 oil portrait of himself.
Reid spent 53 percent of his PAC money on campaigns he was supporting. That's $1.1 million.
Money and Mistresses
More than 400 members of Congress now have opened their own leadership PACs, and there are virtually no limits on how they spend it, just as long as they don't spend it on their campaigns.
Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign's mistress was on the payroll of his Leadership PAC. And former North Carolina senator and presidential candidate John Edwards used leadership PAC money to pay his mistress $114,000 to produce a series of videos.
More than 400 members of Congress now have opened their own leadership PACs, and there are virtually no limits on how they spend it.
Federal Election Laws even allow members of the Congress to spend the money on themselves or their friends and families. Senate rules do not even mention leadership PACs, although hundreds of millions of dollars pour into these funds every election cycle.
Lobbyist Jim Ervin might bristle at McGehee's use of the phrase slush fund, but he seems to agree in spirit.
"I think that it's more than appropriate for Senator Chambliss to do whatever he wants with the leadership PAC money. Certainly I think golf is completely acceptable," he said. Ervin and two of his clients – defense contractors Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics -- put $30,000 into Chambliss' leadership PAC in the last election cycle.
Leadership PACs give incumbents an unfair advantage because challengers typically can't raise the maximum amount of money allowed for their campaign committees, much less for a leadership PAC, said former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith."For the most part it's really kind of an incumbent racket," he said.
The FEC disclosure forms that leadership PACs file are so cursory that lawmakers don't have to disclose who participated or contributed at a PAC fund-raiser, the day the event was held or how much money was raised.
When Chambliss' leadership PAC ran up a $50,394 bill at the Ritz-Carlton Naples on Jan. 25, 2008, the only stated purpose was, "PAC EVENT/LODGING/BANQUET/GOLF."
Chambliss' love of golf is so legendary in Washington political circles that he has been teased for letting golf interfere with his political and legislative business.
In 2003, then-President Bush told a crowd at a golf fund-raiser for Chambliss that the senator had intercepted him on his way to the dais and said, "If you keep it short, we might be able to get a round of golf in."
Chambliss also took heat for skipping a sensitive closed-door Iraq war intelligence briefing in 2005 to golf with Tiger Woods.
Lawmakers who leave Congress sometimes keep their PACs -- or they hand them down like valuable heirlooms to their successors, with the same tight circle of lobbyists and fund-raising professionals often continuing as the core of the organization.
Chambliss' Republican Majority Fund has been around for decades. Former Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee controlled the PAC when he was the Senate Republican leader until 1985. He handed it off to then-Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma. When Nickles retired from the Senate in 2005, he handed it off to Chambliss.
Laura Rizzo, who ran the leadership PAC for Nickles, now runs it for Chambliss. More than one-third of the PAC's expenditures during the 2008 campaign cycle -- $237,536 – was paid to Rizzo for "PAC FUNDRAISING CONSULTING."
Nickles, whose passion for golf is as legendary as Chambliss', now has a successful lobbying practice. Nickles Group and its clients contributed $37,500 to Chambliss' Republican Majority Fund during the 2008 campaign cycle.
Neither Nickles nor Rizzo returned calls seeking comments about their long associations with the Republican Majority Fund.
In March, the FEC's six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans, sent Congress a list of legislative recommendations, including one to prohibit personal use of leadership PAC funds. Their letter went to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as president of the Senate. It also was sent to members of the House and Senate committees that oversee the FEC.
So far, the FEC has gotten no response. ProPublica left messages at the offices of the speaker, majority leader and chairmen of the two committees seeking comment, but got no replies.
This was a joint investigation by ABC News and ProPublica - an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. ProPublica Director of Research Lisa Schwartz and Justin Grant, ABC News, contributed to this report.
How hard would it really be to fix those? :no:
PanzerJaeger
10-08-2011, 20:22
Forget Obama, the next couple of months will be a battle for the heart and soul of the GOP. I know where I stand, and it's not with the evangelicals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdbVku7zDhQ&feature=player_embedded
a completely inoffensive name
10-08-2011, 20:31
Is that one of those leadership pacs?
How hard would it really be to fix those? :no:
At least those in your article actually ran for positions. Sarah Palin pulled the wool over everyone by asking for money, then saying, "well, I'm not running, but thanks for all the money."
Sasaki Kojiro
10-08-2011, 21:27
At least those in your article actually ran for positions. Sarah Palin pulled the wool over everyone by asking for money, then saying, "well, I'm not running, but thanks for all the money."
I don't know if you can get lower than spending it on a mistress.
We need more on what palin spent it on...people who donated are probably happy enough to have her spend it going around the country giving speeches even if she wasn't going to run :shrug:
Basically that clip is a microcosm of how bad the daily show is though.
a completely inoffensive name
10-08-2011, 21:39
I don't know if you can get lower than spending it on a mistress.
We need more on what palin spent it on...people who donated are probably happy enough to have her spend it going around the country giving speeches even if she wasn't going to run :shrug:
Basically that clip is a microcosm of how bad the daily show is though.
It was obvious that her money raising was based on the premise that at some point was was going to enter the race. Like the flyer the Daily Show presented, it asked for money so Sarah could fight the good fight. It was all key words of, "she is running for office" not "she wants to make motivational speeches". Tailing all the candidates in her bus wasn't just a coincidence, it was a planned act.
It can get worse than spending it on a mistress. The mistress guy at least dipped into the PAC to run for re-election is what I am saying. That was Sarah's whole message, "I'm gonna run for president." And then she didn't.
Anyway, that's a very good point. Illegal immigrant means, well, illegally here. Why should we then give them money for committing a crime? That's freaking stupid. We don't need to be hardasses about it, but we don't need to pull down our trousers and bend over either.
I think you're confused about what in-state tuition means. It doesn't refer to financial aid, it just means that residents of a particular state pay less to attend a college in their home state than someone who is from another state.
Oh no he di'n't! Snap, snap, sister! It's ON now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfcOGWRfXdk
Montmorency
10-10-2011, 23:27
There are a lot of reasons not to elect me.
He's right.
What is this, Election Poop? :no:
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2011, 02:09
And Christie endorses Romney.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/10/11/us/politics/100000001105934/chris-christie-endorses-mitt-romney.html
Is this the beginning of a consensus, or just an establishment consensus?
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2011, 02:32
Oh wow - Cain just got asked who he thought was the best model for a future Fed Chairman and he cited Greenspan over Volcker. What was he thinking!?
a completely inoffensive name
10-12-2011, 05:56
Oh wow - Cain just got asked who he thought was the best model for a future Fed Chairman and he cited Greenspan over Volcker. What was he thinking!?
Probably that most people don't know anything about Fed chairmen.
Crazed Rabbit
10-12-2011, 06:14
Gary Johnson does a IAmA at reddit and twitters answers to debate questions:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/l8utx/iama_entrepreneur_ironman_scaler_of_mt_everest/
http://twitter.com/#!/govgaryjohnson
CR
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2011, 07:05
I personally don't feel that Cain has the intellectual capacity for the job, but here's (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/christie-cain-candidacy-shows-conservatives-looking-past-color-1908472.html) a pretty good analysis of his candidacy vis-à-vis the 'Tea Party is racist' meme.
In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, released last week, Cain's supporters are the most committed to his candidacy, compared with supporters of the other GOP contenders. Seventy percent of Republicans polled said the more they heard from Cain during the debates, the more they liked him. Given that the percentage of African Americans who identify themselves as Republican is approximately 10 percent, Cain's support is overwhelmingly drawn from whites, Latinos and other ethnic minorities.
Conversely, Obama and some of his supporters have begun to use race as a wedge issue to bolster his re-election prospects. Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus have called the tea party movement and its supporters racist. In August, Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., the caucus' chief vote-counter said that "some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree." He likened to "Jim Crow" the efforts of the tea party and its supporters in Congress to limit the size of the federal government.
...
There always will be a fringe element that is unable to accept individuals based on the color of their skin. But continuing to paint the tea party as racist is race-baiting by dissatisfied Democrats. Equally problematic is the insinuation that black voters should blindly support the president. Cain made that criticism when he said he thought blacks had been "brainwashed" into supporting Democratic candidates for president.
Consider Obama's speech to the caucus gala last month. "I don't have time to feel sorry for myself. I don't have time to complain. I am going to press on. I expect all of you to march with me and press on," the president said. "Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying."
Here, the president of the United States, speaking before a largely African American audience, elected to use imagery from the civil rights era to say in essence: "Don't criticize me. Just keep working for me." What is left unsaid here, of course, is: "Keep doing these things for me ... because I'm black." Perhaps Obama feels comfortable with this implication, given the popular media narrative that Republicans and tea party activists are either implicitly or explicitly racist. Yet those voters are behind Cain's growing popularity.
During his campaign, Obama generally refused to invoke race. Now he apparently feels compelled to do so to generate support for his policies and his re-election bid. But it seems that conservatives have taken a step forward to support a black candidate while Obama has taken two steps back by using race to divide Americans, rather than bring us together.
I personally don't feel that Cain has the intellectual capacity for the jobWhy do you say that? I wouldn't think you could build up a resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain#Business_career) like his without some smarts.
a completely inoffensive name
10-15-2011, 08:00
Consider Obama's speech to the caucus gala last month. "I don't have time to feel sorry for myself. I don't have time to complain. I am going to press on. I expect all of you to march with me and press on," the president said. "Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying."Here, the president of the United States, speaking before a largely African American audience, elected to use imagery from the civil rights era to say in essence: "Don't criticize me. Just keep working for me." What is left unsaid here, of course, is: "Keep doing these things for me ... because I'm black."
Talk about pulling stuff out of your ***.
Major Robert Dump
10-15-2011, 08:20
If you're talking about the president, then yes. The vote-for-the-black-democrat-because-you're-black is the great unwritten rule, as is criticize-the-black-man-makes-you-racist is the other. This is why the left gets so irate and dumbfounded about a black conservative. This is why the entire tea party is racist, no matter what evidence is shown likewise.
It's almost like Democrats forget what Democrats were doing 60 years ago
**It's also why the left hates Michelle Malkin so much, how dare she be a minority and Republican, who does she think she is?
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 03:36
Why do you say that? I wouldn't think you could build up a resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain#Business_career) like his without some smarts.
That's definitely an impressive business record, and I don't think I'd make it as a ballistics analyst for the Navy. I've watched a lot of interviews with Cain over the last couple of weeks, though, and there just doesn't seem to be much depth or thought behind his positions. Maybe I should have said 'depth of knowledge' instead of 'intellectual capacity'.
Of course, there are exceptions, like his dismantling of the black unemployment disparity = racism claim the Left so often throws out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLt6c-lhCww
And on the subject of Cain and interviews, I don't think I've ever seen a more ridiculous interview in my life, especially at 7:20 in the first and 5:40 in the second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEjl5iaSG6I&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_841176&src_vid=ZEjl5iaSG6I&v=5n7GbNtQlFo&feature=iv
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 08:11
If you're talking about the president, then yes. The vote-for-the-black-democrat-because-you're-black is the great unwritten rule, as is criticize-the-black-man-makes-you-racist is the other. This is why the left gets so irate and dumbfounded about a black conservative. This is why the entire tea party is racist, no matter what evidence is shown likewise.
Yeah, you can't say the Tea Party is racist just because they sing Barack the magic negro and photoshop pictures of Obama with watermelon and a bone in his nose.
It's almost like Democrats forget what Democrats were doing 60 years ago
Because the composition of the Democratic party is exactly the same as it was 60 years ago right? Democrats still have the South as their bastion for votes right? Oh wait, the 60s and 70s happened.
**It's also why the left hates Michelle Malkin so much, how dare she be a minority and Republican, who does she think she is?
I don't like her because she is an idiot.
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 08:22
Yeah, you can't say the Tea Party is racist just because they sing Barack the magic negro and photoshop pictures of Obama with watermelon and a bone in his nose.
There's that useful 'they' again, which can be as broad as its user wishes.
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 08:26
There's that useful 'they' again, which can be as broad as its user wishes.
Their leaders and figureheads, which presumably they support.
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 09:04
The same leaders who seem to have thrown their support behind the man in the videos I posted earlier?
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 09:19
The same leaders who seem to have thrown their support behind the man in the videos I posted earlier?
You got it. Supporting a black person != not racist. You go ahead and have a field day with that statement, but it is quite obvious what they are doing. Since Obama came into office, they first rushed Michael Steele in as RNC chairman, then when he performed disappointingly from a PR perspective, they quickly grew tired of him. Now it is election time and Cain is getting the spotlight. And when he doesn't perform as well as they want, they will abandon him in a way they didn't with McCain even though McCain failed as hard as a candidate possibly could.
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 11:02
You got it. Supporting a black person != not racist. You go ahead and have a field day with that statement, but it is quite obvious what they are doing. Since Obama came into office, they first rushed Michael Steele in as RNC chairman, then when he performed disappointingly from a PR perspective, they quickly grew tired of him.
Now it is election time and Cain is getting the spotlight. And when he doesn't perform as well as they want, they will abandon him in a way they didn't with McCain even though McCain failed as hard as a candidate possibly could.
I'm pretty dense so it's not all that obvious to me. So you're saying that Tea Partiers are racist, but it's such a secret racism that they're willing to support black leadership at the highest levels of the party and even a black presidential candidate in their effort to get the current black president out of the White House? :dizzy2:
And umm... they didn't support McCain. They split between Romney (then considered the conservative choice) and Huckabee, letting McCain slip by with less than 50% of the GOP primary vote. Obviously once he was the GOP nominee and the alternative was a blue state liberal, many held their nose and supported him. Even then though, the Palin decision was due in large part to a perceived lack of conservative enthusiasm for the McCain candidacy.
You can say a lot about the Tea Party types, but they have consistently supported the most conservative candidate on the ballot, regardless of sex, race, or ethnic origins - and not just for show either, they've showed up at the ballot box in the deep south and elected them. That's why they promptly dumped a Tea Party pandering WASP governer from Texas who was seemingly readymade for them simply due to his immigration stance and have moved on to what they perceive to be an even more purely conservative candidate - who just happens to be black.
The main issue for Cain is the national sales tax in his 999 plan that can be raised by future governments and some of the positions he's taken in the past that haven't yet emerged in the mainstream - not his race.
Major Robert Dump
10-16-2011, 12:13
Yeah, you can't say the Tea Party is racist just because they sing Barack the magic negro and photoshop pictures of Obama with watermelon and a bone in his nose.
Because the composition of the Democratic party is exactly the same as it was 60 years ago right? Democrats still have the South as their bastion for votes right? Oh wait, the 60s and 70s happened.
I don't like her because she is an idiot.
1. Some morons acting fools is not representative of the entire group. I give you the protests going on right now, no? But if one were to call the protestors unemployed hacks, our newsies will be up in arms, meanwhile they call the tea party racists because of a few bad apples.
2. A lot of the Democratic battle cries are the result of bad democratic policies. The 60s and 70s came, yes, and the younger members helped change the movement. My point, however, is that they were the racists, they were the ones who stood in the way of desegregation. This is the problem with "platforms", a bunch of things bunched together that had nothing to do with one another but binds party together. Democratds did not lead the Civil Rights movement, but they led the New Deal. I can almost, without a doubt, utterly promise you that most young people today do not know this, because they automatically associate Democrats with civil rights, when really the civil rights of today has been reduced to pandering for votes for people who are make believe oppressed. Make the people think they have a cuase, support their cause, and you now have votes. That reverse thinking means that if you do not support their cause, and there are minorities involved, that makes you a racist. Dumb.
3. Michelle Malkin gets comments on her website that are regularly directed at her Asian heritage. So much for the racially sensitive left. Black conservatives are called Uncle Toms and confused, aka Clarence Thomas and JC Watts, so much for the racial sensitivity of the left. If all of these minorities stopped voting, as did all of the people who trumpet their causes, they would be of no use to the Democratic Party. You, ACIN, may genuinely care for these people and think they are legitimately oppressed, and that is where you and I will differ in most regards. Liberal Politicians, however, could care less, and use the sensitivity of people like you and Sean Penn to line their pockets, maintain a voter base and essentially use you as tools. I am not suggesting that the Republican party does not do this in their own sneaky little ways, because they do, but with a different game plan
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2011, 02:16
Interrupting the race conversation with a News of the Weird item on its own (Wannabe Obama replacement tried to hire Ballmer), best summarised by one of the comments on the article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/14/mitt_romney_tried_hire_steve_ballmer/): “DIPLOMATS DIPLOMATS DIPLOMATS DIPLOMATS!!!!!”.
Cecil XIX
10-17-2011, 22:22
You got it. Supporting a black person != not racist. You go ahead and have a field day with that statement, but it is quite obvious what they are doing. Since Obama came into office, they first rushed Michael Steele in as RNC chairman, then when he performed disappointingly from a PR perspective, they quickly grew tired of him. Now it is election time and Cain is getting the spotlight. And when he doesn't perform as well as they want, they will abandon him in a way they didn't with McCain even though McCain failed as hard as a candidate possibly could.
John McCain and Michael Steele are part of the Republican establishment. They operate in different circles from Herman Cain, and the people who supported McCain in the 2008 primaries and Steele for RNC Chairman are supporting Romney this time around. The reason for Cain's surge in the polls is that he's a conservative, he's not Romney and he has a bold plan for conservative Reform in "9-9-9". He's also the first challenger to Romney who hasn't collapsed during the first debate after his ascendency.
As long as Cain can avoid stumbling in the way Pawlenty, Bachmann and Perry did, I think he's got the nomination locked up. Romney's probably the least likely person to get the nomination, (don't want 2008 again) and he's probably the least electable too in the general with the possible exceptions of Huntsman and Paul.
I'm pretty dense so it's not all that obvious to me. So you're saying that Tea Partiers are racist, but it's such a secret racism that they're willing to support black leadership at the highest levels of the party and even a black presidential candidate in their effort to get the current black president out of the White House? :dizzy2:
you're talking like people are saying that the tea party is the Klan....I think it's a lot more subtle and complex than that.
I think the racial motivation against Obama is real for a significant number of them...but it's a lot more subconscious and buried than for the average moron marching down the road in a white robe...most of these people would not admit to any kind of racial based prejudice even if you tried to beat them out of it......the fact that they just happened to rise up and organize the moment a black man was getting near to the white house, ....one of those crazy coincidences... along with all those racial terms thrown around in their rhetoric and in signs at protests.
as for them possibly choosing a black candidate, let's look at the 2 cases, both black, yes.
but one of them disagrees strongly with them politically, and has been presented insistently by their favorite "news" organizations as a "socialist", a secret muslim, possibly even not a native citizen, basically he's seen as threatening.
the other one is a conservative, has a tax plan they like, is non threatening and is seen as someone who can possibly defeat the "evil socialist muslim" Barack Hussein Obama....
put into simple terms..."he's one of the good ones"
I love hypocrisy. And Bill Maher. It's interesting how all of the funniest political commentators/satirists are liberal...
It is actually the crowd they are addressing. The problem with the stereotypical Republican crowd.. those "hilarious comments" are actually their political beliefs, they don't see the funny side of it.
It is an in-joke where effectively the only people who don't get it are those who hold those opinions.
a completely inoffensive name
10-18-2011, 09:23
And umm... they didn't support McCain. They split between Romney (then considered the conservative choice) and Huckabee, letting McCain slip by with less than 50% of the GOP primary vote. Obviously once he was the GOP nominee and the alternative was a blue state liberal, many held their nose and supported him. Even then though, the Palin decision was due in large part to a perceived lack of conservative enthusiasm for the McCain candidacy.
kk. usually when liberals are pissed at their candidate they either dont vote or vote for nader. but it seems the conservative base is very loyal to whoever the leader is.
You can say a lot about the Tea Party types, but they have consistently supported the most conservative candidate on the ballot, regardless of sex, race, or ethnic origins - and not just for show either, they've showed up at the ballot box in the deep south and elected them. That's why they promptly dumped a Tea Party pandering WASP governer from Texas who was seemingly readymade for them simply due to his immigration stance and have moved on to what they perceive to be an even more purely conservative candidate - who just happens to be black.
If what I put in bold was true, then everyone would have voted for Ron Paul in the primary in 2008 and this round as well.
The main issue for Cain is the national sales tax in his 999 plan that can be raised by future governments and some of the positions he's taken in the past that haven't yet emerged in the mainstream - not his race.
What positions? Declaring that communities can choose to force a mosque out?
a completely inoffensive name
10-18-2011, 09:29
John McCain and Michael Steele are part of the Republican establishment.
Steele has been out of the establishment ever since his PR (AKA we have black leaders as well) was shown to be a big joke. They kicked him out as soon as they could and now he is a commentator on MSNBC of all places.
They operate in different circles from Herman Cain, and the people who supported McCain in the 2008 primaries and Steele for RNC Chairman are supporting Romney this time around. The reason for Cain's surge in the polls is that he's a conservative, he's not Romney and he has a bold plan for conservative Reform in "9-9-9". He's also the first challenger to Romney who hasn't collapsed during the first debate after his ascendency.
The reason for Cain's surge is that the planned leaders (Romney and Perry) didn't work out well when Perry failed hard. SO the establishment had to rally around someone else. They already ditched Bachmann who was being plastered on tv night and day until the minute Perry entered the race. Pawlenty had dropped out, so they were running out of sane people they could depend on for keeping the status quo (AKA not Ron Paul).
As long as Cain can avoid stumbling in the way Pawlenty, Bachmann and Perry did, I think he's got the nomination locked up. Romney's probably the least likely person to get the nomination, (don't want 2008 again) and he's probably the least electable too in the general with the possible exceptions of Huntsman and Paul.
Cain was talking about his plans since at least early January. And now the public is responding? Yeah ok. Manufactured irrelevance and relevance is in full effect here.
Major Robert Dump
10-18-2011, 11:44
So Michael Steele should not have been kicked out for poor performance? Why, because he's black? You make it sound like he was somebodies patsy, when in fact he failed miserably and sid things that were so idiotic they had to get rid of him.
I don't know where this "he's one of the good ones" mentalilty is coming in. Of course there are racists. there are people who will never support a black candidate. there are people who will only support a black candidate as a golden goose against another black candidate. But to suggest that all support for Cain comes from subtle racism (wanting to use a black to trump a black) is as bad as saying all opposition to Obama is racist, and all oppotition to a certain crusade that allegedly (although not really) will make life better for minorities is racist. I mean really. This is just ghastly.
We have all these babies talking about racial inequality and wholesale oppression, and these same babies are the ones to want to bring race into everything. EVERYTHING. Bill Clinton's welfare reform comes to mind. Boy did the wolves turn on him quick.
** say what you will about Cains "manufactured" rise in the polls. This is politics. People come and go, and it has a hell of a lot more to do with what the media is saying and doing that what the average joe thinks or feels. Cain got zero coverage from the liberal press, and Fox blew him off. Don't act so surpirsed. I would like to remind you that despite being a steady 3rd place in polls and debates, Ron Paul does not exist in news reporting of standings. He just is not there. I think it's funny that you act like this is some sort of Republican conspiracy to use a black man when if anyone is at fault its the media and the FEC for their stupid debate inclusion rules.
For those of us who missed the Vegas debate, here's a tease:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL1o4t7som0
PanzerJaeger
10-20-2011, 13:50
After the five debates and doing some more research on the declared candidates, I've essentially made up my mind in favor of Romney, which is pretty amazing considering the fact that I consider myself very right wing. That could be a reflection of some shifting in my own thinking, the state of conservative politics, or simply the current crop of candidates. It has been fairly disappointing seeing competent candidate after competent candidate decline to run over the spring and summer. Maybe they perceive the same issue that Seamus highlighted earlier in the thread - that the media establishment simply will not allow the first black president to be voted out in failure. Who knows.
Of the declared candidates with a chance, however, Romney is the only serious one in the bunch, in my opinion. Further, at this point in our nation's history, I actually think his rather amorphous political alignment is a positive. The coming years are going to bring huge challenges to the nation that will shake it to its very core. The answers to our fundamental problems probably won't fit neatly in to our established Right-Left political dichotomy, and having a leader that isn't locked into a particular ideology may turn out to be an asset. You can say a lot about Romney, but one thing he seems to be good at is fixing broken organizations. Whether it was mismanaged companies, mismanaged international events, or mismanaged states - he's always left them in better shape than he found them. More than anything, America needs a skilled administrator that prioritizes solutions over ideology. In that way, Romney reminds me of a slightly less paranoid version of one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon.
More importantly, here's a blind taste test of Godfather's Pizza (http://videoshare.politico.com/singletitlevideo.php?bcpid=19407224001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&bctid=1225294635001). We can only hope that a Cain presidency would be more flavorful.
I agree with PJ that Romney is the most promising of the current frontrunners. If I could wave my hand and pick Obama's replacement, I would take Jon Huntsman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-huntsman-the-reasonable-republican/2011/10/18/gIQAFAWTvL_story.html), but that snowball has melted in Hell's fiery pit. Or as WaPo put it, "A system that rejects a Jon Huntsman in favor of a Herman Cain isn’t a primary process. It is a primal scream."
a completely inoffensive name
10-22-2011, 05:50
So Michael Steele should not have been kicked out for poor performance? Why, because he's black? You make it sound like he was somebodies patsy, when in fact he failed miserably and sid things that were so idiotic they had to get rid of him.
It was under his leadership that Republicans regained the House and almost took control of the Senate. He got the Republicans where they wanted, in a spot to defy Obama. Just because they say he had "bad performance" doesn't mean he actually did. Just a made up justification.
I don't know where this "he's one of the good ones" mentalilty is coming in. Of course there are racists. there are people who will never support a black candidate. there are people who will only support a black candidate as a golden goose against another black candidate. But to suggest that all support for Cain comes from subtle racism (wanting to use a black to trump a black) is as bad as saying all opposition to Obama is racist, and all oppotition to a certain crusade that allegedly (although not really) will make life better for minorities is racist. I mean really. This is just ghastly.
I am not saying that all support for Cain comes from subtle racism at all. I am saying that the leadership of the Republican Party is being subtly racist by purposely hyping up the only legit black candidate through their PR channels (Fox) because he is black.
Let me clarify, this is how I am saying it went down.
1. They set up Romney vs Bachmann against each other. We got the moderate to keep the sane people interested and the religious to appease our base.
2. Oh Rick Perry comes out just after a bible fest, quick, make Bachmann irrelevant despite winning the straw pole and only talk about Perry now.
3. Now we have Romney vs Perry.
4. Oh dang, Perry hasn't been doing well onstage. Let shift attention suddenly to Cain because he has "experience" and he gives the impression that we are not homogeneous (aka the subtle racism).
5. Oh Perry has bounced back in recent debates and Cain looked weak under the new attention, quick shift attention back to Romney vs Perry because having religious Perry in the spotlight is better than two private sector moderates.
The media controls the process by leading up to a poll with assertion after assertion of who is going to win or looked the best. Human psychology of wanting to be behind the "winners" and not the losers naturally has those touted on tv as being the winners, which the media then uses to make more assertions etc... The Republican leadership has a better history of using the media than any other group. Roger Ailes conceived of a pro Republican news channel back in the 1970s and what is he in charge of now?
We have all these babies talking about racial inequality and wholesale oppression, and these same babies are the ones to want to bring race into everything. EVERYTHING. Bill Clinton's welfare reform comes to mind. Boy did the wolves turn on him quick.
I don't hear anything about racial inequality. This came up when Obama said, "you should march with me hand in hand to victory." and now people are taking that as, "oh god, race, race, race, now he wants to give more welfare to blacks."
** say what you will about Cains "manufactured" rise in the polls. This is politics. People come and go, and it has a hell of a lot more to do with what the media is saying and doing that what the average joe thinks or feels. Cain got zero coverage from the liberal press, and Fox blew him off. Don't act so surpirsed. I would like to remind you that despite being a steady 3rd place in polls and debates, Ron Paul does not exist in news reporting of standings. He just is not there. I think it's funny that you act like this is some sort of Republican conspiracy to use a black man when if anyone is at fault its the media and the FEC for their stupid debate inclusion rules.
The media and the FEC are largely influenced by the political factions. This is what happens when corporations become too big. There are 6 companies controlling almost all of american media, the Republicans are always the ones trying to give as many tax breaks to large companies as possible, the corruption runs deep and to try and blame one without recognizing the inter dependencies and relationships between the two factions is just inaccurate.
Major Robert Dump
10-22-2011, 06:44
Yes, Michael Steele was solely responsible for Republican gains in the electionband he was only fired because he was black. It was all so obvious.
a completely inoffensive name
10-22-2011, 07:09
Yes, Michael Steele was solely responsible for Republican gains in the electionband he was only fired because he was black. It was all so obvious.
Congrats, MRD, you have successfully twisted my words.
Major Robert Dump
10-22-2011, 15:45
Get used to it, since you plan a career in politics. I'm just helping you get ready. :laugh4:
Why do you say that? I wouldn't think you could build up a resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain#Business_career) like his without some smarts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-sBPBzpmE
try to follow his logic...the interviewer couldn´t and I don´t blame him.
Montmorency
10-22-2011, 21:07
He made himself pretty clear at the end:
I don'tbelieve a woman should have an abortion...even if she is raped or is a victim of incest, because there are other options.
He made himself pretty clear at the end:
even a broken clock is right twice a day.
he says 'that's her (the woman's) choice....interviewer goes "then that means it's legal"...NO.
so it's not her choice then now is it?.....it's her choice from the limited options he is willing to consider.
now...that stand is fine for a person to take.....my point here is not his position towards abortion.....one can agree with it or not..but he does come across as a bumbling fool trying to express it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-22-2011, 22:02
even a broken clock is right twice a day.
he says 'that's her (the woman's) choice....interviewer goes "then that means it's legal"...NO.
so it's not her choice then now is it?.....it's her choice from the limited options he is willing to consider.
now...that stand is fine for a person to take.....my point here is not his position towards abortion.....one can agree with it or not..but he does come across as a bumbling fool trying to express it.
He sounds like a Libertarian pro-lifer, badly articulated. I think micro minis should be illegal, they are slutty and just totally unattractive - but I wouldn't actually pass a law on it.
a completely inoffensive name
10-23-2011, 00:16
I think micro minis should be illegal, they are slutty and just totally unattractive - but I wouldn't actually pass a law on it.
The attractiveness of mini skirts depends on the fabric and the aesthetic style to it, but in general I would agree with you.
Centurion1
10-23-2011, 00:18
all that matters is the *** involved
a completely inoffensive name
10-23-2011, 00:19
all that matters is the *** involved
I see my boy is back in the game!
CountArach
10-23-2011, 00:21
he says 'that's her (the woman's) choice....interviewer goes "then that means it's legal"...NO.
Actually it doesn't make sense from a policy standpoint. If one believes that a woman should have a choice to end a pregnancy in the case of rape, etc then there has to be a legislative manner to ensure that she can do so.
Actually it doesn't make sense from a policy standpoint. If one believes that a woman should have a choice to end a pregnancy in the case of rape, etc then there has to be a legislative manner to ensure that she can do so.
actually has he clarifies later on in the interview he thinks a woman should not have that right....so on his perspective it makes sense.
personally I don´t see how the whole "abortion is wrong except for in the cases of rape" argument works.
to me that's like saying that a fetus has the same exact rights as a living person.....unless it's father was an ***hole. :P
seems like a complicated moral position :D
Samurai Waki
10-23-2011, 00:42
Yep... People like Cain are interested in the unborn until they're born; but after that they couldn't care less. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
CountArach
10-23-2011, 03:01
actually has he clarifies later on in the interview he thinks a woman should not have that right....so on his perspective it makes sense.
personally I don´t see how the whole "abortion is wrong except for in the cases of rape" argument works.
to me that's like saying that a fetus has the same exact rights as a living person.....unless it's father was an ***hole. :P
seems like a complicated moral position :D
Oh I totally agree with you, don't get me wrong.
Ironside
10-23-2011, 09:15
actually has he clarifies later on in the interview he thinks a woman should not have that right....so on his perspective it makes sense.
personally I don´t see how the whole "abortion is wrong except for in the cases of rape" argument works.
to me that's like saying that a fetus has the same exact rights as a living person.....unless it's father was an ***hole. :P
seems like a complicated moral position :D
It's an offshoot from the "taking responsibillity from your own actions" (aka unprotected sex), not the "sanctity of life"- side of the argument.
It's an offshoot from the "taking responsibillity from your own actions" (aka unprotected sex), not the "sanctity of life"- side of the argument.
taking responsibility for something means handling it......an abortion is handling the situation.
so I disagree with your assessment...it comes down to a 'sanctity of life' type argument.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-23-2011, 19:51
Yep... People like Cain are interested in the unborn until they're born; but after that they couldn't care less. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Most pro-Abortionists are also against the death penalty.
Is that consistant? If it's ok to do a late term abortion it's definately ok to kill a child molester.
It's an offshoot from the "taking responsibillity from your own actions" (aka unprotected sex), not the "sanctity of life"- side of the argument.
Right.
taking responsibility for something means handling it......an abortion is handling the situation.
so I disagree with your assessment...it comes down to a 'sanctity of life' type argument.
No, you're wrong. The argument runs thus:
"You had unprotected sex, you got pregnant, you can't kill your child just because it's inconvenient. If you can't bear having this man's baby you shouldn't have had sex with him."
With rape that argument is turned around, on the understanding that the massive trauma of carrying the child to term is not something the woman should have to endure through no fault of her own.
Even then, it would have to be an early abortion.
Cecil XIX
10-24-2011, 00:29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-sBPBzpmE
try to follow his logic...the interviewer couldn´t and I don´t blame him.
It's interesting that Cain doesn't seem to be confused about what he's trying to say. Assuming Cain's being sincere when he says he's pro-life, (the National Right To Life committee has issued a statement supporting him since the controversy began) I do think there is a way to reconcile the two seemingly pro-life statements he gave. The first is when Stossel asks him "Any cases where [abortion] should be legal?" and Cain responds "I don't think government should make that decision." Most people are interpretative that to mean Cain believes government shouldn't determine when abortion is illegal, i.e. when to outlaw. However, it sounds to me that what Cain is basically saying "no", that government shouldn't determine when abortion should be legal, i.e. when it's allowed.
Second, when he said an abortion is the woman's choice, not government's. I think this was a recognition of the fact that making something illegal doesn't always stop people from doing it. That why I laughed when Stossel said "If it's her choice, it's not illegal." People choose to do illegal things all the time! This is similar to the reasoning he gave for not signing the Susan B. Anthony Lists's pro-life pledge: He doesn't want to pledge to advance legislation because that Congress's job. I've noticed before that Cain talks about abortion as a personal issue, rather than a policy issue. This is likely mistake even if there' s nothing wrong with it, as it does make it easy to confuse the issue.
CountArach
10-24-2011, 00:53
Is that consistant? If it's ok to do a late term abortion it's definately ok to kill a child molester.
Not really. One is most definitely alive and sentient.
Crazed Rabbit
10-24-2011, 01:43
Not really. One is most definitely alive and sentient.
I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, but really?
You're unsure about whether a late term baby is alive and sentient? Even in cases where a child could be born and survive instead of being aborted in the late term? Does some magical sentience fairy hang around to plop sentience into your brain just - and only just - as you exist the womb?
Anyways, I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that neither Johnson nor Paul are going to be the nominee. Which means I'll write in Johnson.
CR
CountArach
10-24-2011, 07:29
I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, but really?
You're unsure about whether a late term baby is alive and sentient? Even in cases where a child could be born and survive instead of being aborted in the late term? Does some magical sentience fairy hang around to plop sentience into your brain just - and only just - as you exist the womb?
Ah I missed the important "late term" qualifier.
Major Robert Dump
10-24-2011, 09:36
I like how most the candidates say Obama made the wrong decision on Iraq, even though the basis of his decision is due to lack of agreement for something the Republicans have long championed: immunity for troops. While that is an entirely different debate for another thread, the shallowness of these candidates is pretty stark. Basically, be a proponent of the exact opposite of everything the president does. When it comes to military operations and geopolitics, these statements by these people highlight just how little they know or understand. Talk. That's all they do, is talk.
I like how most the candidates say Obama made the wrong decision on Iraq, even though the basis of his decision is due to lack of agreement for something the Republicans have long championed: immunity for troops. While that is an entirely different debate for another thread, the shallowness of these candidates is pretty stark. Basically, be a proponent of the exact opposite of everything the president does. When it comes to military operations and geopolitics, these statements by these people highlight just how little they know or understand. Talk. That's all they do, is talk.
well you know, Obama's got cooties or something so they must be against anything he decides....even if it's something they would normally support.
watching them backflip over the last week about the Lybia situation has been very amusing...if the president was anyone else they would be all for what is happening, but what? Obama was involved in it? then it's bad.
It's interesting that Cain doesn't seem to be confused about what he's trying to say. Assuming Cain's being sincere when he says he's pro-life, (the National Right To Life committee has issued a statement supporting him since the controversy began) I do think there is a way to reconcile the two seemingly pro-life statements he gave. The first is when Stossel asks him "Any cases where [abortion] should be legal?" and Cain responds "I don't think government should make that decision." Most people are interpretative that to mean Cain believes government shouldn't determine when abortion is illegal, i.e. when to outlaw. However, it sounds to me that what Cain is basically saying "no", that government shouldn't determine when abortion should be legal, i.e. when it's allowed.
yeah he doesn´t look confused...he's looking at the interviewer with a face that says "why can´t you understand this? I´m being very clear" ...it's the conflict between that and the non-clarity of his words that makes it so funny.
Second, when he said an abortion is the woman's choice, not government's. I think this was a recognition of the fact that making something illegal doesn't always stop people from doing it. That why I laughed when Stossel said "If it's her choice, it's not illegal." People choose to do illegal things all the time! This is similar to the reasoning he gave for not signing the Susan B. Anthony Lists's pro-life pledge: He doesn't want to pledge to advance legislation because that Congress's job. I've noticed before that Cain talks about abortion as a personal issue, rather than a policy issue. This is likely mistake even if there' s nothing wrong with it, as it does make it easy to confuse the issue.
I think that's going awfully far and fancy to try to dance around what is basically a tongue slip on the candidate's part.
a person can also choose to go into a shopping mall with an assault rifle and mow down 50 people...of course, but you will never hear any elected official or candidate refer to that as that person's "choice"...from a state perspective if something is illegal then a citizen does not have the right to make that choice that is the basis of the authority of the state and of the law.....it the choice exists then by elimination it must be legal.
if he is absolutely 100% pro life then he is pro life...ok...there is a constituency for that...just say it.
What I find surprising about all these republican candidates that have gone through the "rise and fall" popularity process in the last few months is their apparent lack of preparation in responding to simple issues.
let's be honest, "what is your stance on abortion" is not a surprise question to be asked of a US presidential candidate, it's not a "gotcha" question like Palin would have quickly said, it's something that you would expect any minimally organized campaign policy organizer to have sat down with the candidate months ago and hammered down to a clear couple of sentences the candidate can use to explain his position.
I guess desperate times really do call for desperate measures. Perry flirts with birtherism. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281080/perry-wont-state-obama-definitely-born-us-katrina-trinko) I suppose this is his hail-mary play.
Herman Cain awesome ad! Great job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_and_Eric_Awesome_Show,_Great_Job!)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM
Cecil XIX
10-26-2011, 04:17
I think that's going awfully far and fancy to try to dance around what is basically a tongue slip on the candidate's part.
I agree that it's a long way to go, but I think it's worth going at least once. It seems he honestly believes he was being clear and consistent, and I don't think you'd act that way unless you were also being honest. That would mean he really is pro-life the way he says he is, and also explains why didn't feel the need to prepare more in the first place.
Herman Cain awesome ad! Great job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_and_Eric_Awesome_Show,_Great_Job!)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM
gotta love the whole message of "putting the united back in united states of America"...and at the same time claim they are going to "take back" the country....not to mention the generic GOP stance when it comes to talking about the Democrats and this president in particular.
Let's play a little game....it's called, 'one of these things is not like the others.'
"This advert was paid for by Tobacco industry - Fight against the oppression of the National Health Service."
Crazed Rabbit
10-28-2011, 02:39
What Ron Paul should have mentioned when he answered the question about people with no health insurance:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141653000/before-he-delivered-for-voters-paul-delivered-babies
Eventually Paul got so busy he took on a partner. Jack Pruett, who was then fresh out of his obstetrics/gynecology residency, says when he first sat down in Paul's office, he was told there were two stipulations he would have to agree to before joining the practice.
"He said, 'No. 1 is we will not perform any abortions.' And I said, 'That's fine; I can live with that. What's No. 2?' " he remembers.
No. 2, says Pruett, was that the practice would not participate in any federal health programs, which meant, as Paul described it, "that we will see all Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, and they will be treated just like all of our other patients, but we're not going to charge them and accept federal funds."
Still in debt from his medical training, Pruett said that was a little harder for him to swallow. "But I liked Ron, so I decided I would agree to that, too. And in all those 20 years, we never accepted one penny of federal money. We saw all those patients for free, delivered their babies for free, did their surgeries free; whatever they needed we did, and we didn't charge them."
That's compassion and principles of tempered steel.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
10-28-2011, 07:31
That's compassion and principles of tempered steel.
CR
Yes, once again Dr. Paul shows the solution. Doctors should treat poor patients for free, so the Federal government doesn't get involved.
Major Robert Dump
10-28-2011, 10:05
Great idea. And while we're at it, make gorcery stores give free food and taxis give free rides.
If we aren't going to do socialized healthcare the right way (the right way being single payer, no more halth insurance companies), doctors should not be expected to eat the cost of treating the poor and/or paying for the feds lack of re-inbrusement. Hypocondriacs, attention-seekers and people trying to get out of work or skip school already work the inurance system as it is, and making doctors free for poor people would increase such acts. Forcing docs to eat the cost would also mean they would be less likely to locate their practices in poor communities, not to mention that the cost would be passed on to the people who actually paid. And finally, people would intentionally cap their income to qualify for free service. If the cut-off for "poverty" is 18k, then people will avoid the additional income so that they can qualify for all sorts of free, expensive care, because it would benefit them financially to do so.
Paul should be commended for what he did, but not without noting that he go inherent tax benefits for doing so. It was voluntary, and it was a tax write off. But expecting doctors (and the rest of us) to pay for people who could not learn to put down the donuts, the cigarrettes and the booze is not the answer.
Major Robert Dump
10-29-2011, 09:52
Back OT.
How saying a black conservative candidates support comes only because whitey thinks he "knows his place" is not racist is beyond me. You see, this is my problem with the left. If this sort of statement were coming from anyone but the left, there would be rallies, marches and calls for resignations. They do the same thing gender issues, and they do the same thing with Islam. It's pandering, and they cannot accept the idea that someone who fits the normal diagram of falling under their constituents might just might have different ideas.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbc-analyst-herman-cain-black-man-who-knows-his-place_604145.html
Cain's candidacy is cynical, but not racist. It's cynical because no serious attention has ever been given to black Republicans prior to the election of the first black President - Alan Keyes is a case in point.
Alan Keyes is a certified nutjob, a fact that transcends party and race.
I don't see why the Republican's can't become a party that embraces multi-culti. Things change, after all. At the turn of the 1900s the Democrats were the party of sour grapes, segregation and Dixie power, while Republicans were the party of the progressive, industrialized north. Things change.
The Republican base is dangerously old and white, in a country that is increasingly young and brown. All the gerrymandering of districts in the world can only suppress that fact for so long. Many in Republican leadership have been saying this on some level -- it's time to ditch the southern strategy and embrace something else.
What will that be? I have no idea. Maybe a Cain candidacy is part of it, maybe not. I think Cain isn't ready for prime-time, but that's just one lemur's opinion. The only thing I'm sure of: Things change.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-29-2011, 21:33
Cain's candidacy is cynical, but not racist. It's cynical because no serious attention has ever been given to black Republicans prior to the election of the first black President - Alan Keyes is a case in point.
Colin Powell. Iirc he refused to even countinence running because he thought he would be shot. I don't think there's a racist element to mainstream Republicanism, but they don't like very poor people and blacks in the US are often poor.
Alan Keyes is a certified nutjob, a fact that transcends party and race.
I don't see why the Republican's can't become a party that embraces multi-culti. Things change, after all. At the turn of the 1900s the Democrats were the party of sour grapes, segregation and Dixie power, while Republicans were the party of the progressive, industrialized north. Things change.
The Republican base is dangerously old and white, in a country that is increasingly young and brown. All the gerrymandering of districts in the world can only suppress that fact for so long. Many in Republican leadership have been saying this on some level -- it's time to ditch the southern strategy and embrace something else.
What will that be? I have no idea. Maybe a Cain candidacy is part of it, maybe not. I think Cain isn't ready for prime-time, but that's just one lemur's opinion. The only thing I'm sure of: Things change.
Cain is rich and a self made man, what could be more Republican? As I said above, I doubt there is a mainstream racism in Republicanism, currently they will attract racists purely because the president is black and a Democrat.
a completely inoffensive name
10-29-2011, 22:13
Condoleezza Rice looked like she was a very smart woman and could have been a big player for the Republican Party, what ever happened to her?
CrossLOPER
10-29-2011, 22:16
Condoleezza Rice looked like she was a very smart woman and could have been a big player for the Republican Party, what ever happened to her?
GWB
PanzerJaeger
10-30-2011, 07:03
The Republican base is dangerously old and white, in a country that is increasingly young and brown. All the gerrymandering of districts in the world can only suppress that fact for so long. Many in Republican leadership have been saying this on some level -- it's time to ditch the southern strategy and embrace something else.
They could take a page from the dem's playbook and become the party of a newly disaffected white population. Race based politics has worked great for the dems, and although whites aren't currently allowed to engage in such things, that will fade in the future as their majority slims.
Condoleezza Rice looked like she was a very smart woman and could have been a big player for the Republican Party, what ever happened to her?
Conoaleezza Rice is not a politician. She made it clear when Bush tapped her for National Security Advisor that she had no desire to run for an elected office. There was actually a movement within the GOP to draft her, but she consistently declined. Keep trying...
a completely inoffensive name
10-30-2011, 07:34
Conoaleezza Rice is not a politician. She made it clear when Bush tapped her for National Security Advisor that she had no desire to run for an elected office. There was actually a movement within the GOP to draft her, but she consistently declined. Keep trying...
lol wasn't trying to tie it into my thesis buddy. was just an honest question.
Major Robert Dump
10-30-2011, 09:34
Everyone knows the only reason Condi and Powell were ever on good terms with the Republicans was because they had light skin and could be easily mistaken for white folk in a low-light setting. Most White House dinners and engagements are done in low light settings, which works out perfectly, because you don't want to upset the rich, white donors when they realize that the General is a guest and, in fact, not serving cake. Condi and Powell knew their places. They were two of the good ones. Condi and Powell were articulate for their type. They stopped letting Powell sleep in the non-servant wing when him and Master Rummy got into it about Iraq, erm I mean the cotton.
a completely inoffensive name
10-30-2011, 10:58
I know MRD is being facetious, but it was pretty bad how the Republicans under GWB dropped Powell and then trashed him for years after because of the conflicting opinions on Iraq.
Major Robert Dump
10-30-2011, 11:56
I don't necessarily agree with the treatment of Powell and happened to agree with him on the finer points of Iraq, but what happened to him is no different than what happens to anyone in politics when they leave their post and speak out against their former colleagues. The whole situation was complicated by his endorsement of Obama.
Powell was hung out to dry with the UN speech. I'm sure he's not bitter or anything.
PanzerJaeger
10-31-2011, 06:51
Rick Perry... drunk or high or some combination of the two... giving a speech in New Hampshire over the weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4gz97Y9W8&feature=player_embedded#!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-31-2011, 14:37
Rick Perry... drunk or high or some combination of the two... giving a speech in New Hampshire over the weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4gz97Y9W8&feature=player_embedded#!
That's GWB in a rubber mask, right?
It's good to see that Perry can let it all hang out. So he's lit up, so what?
Meanwhile, you say sexual harassment (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html), I say Herman Cain is a man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFCZHWK89k
-edit-
A helpful primer on harassment suits and payouts from a lawyer (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/the-mark-of-cain-ctd-1.html):
[T]he vast, vast majority of these claims are settled without regard to the merit of the charge because the costs of defense just don’t justify litigating them. You can blame defense lawyer fees, but potential bad publicity and a need to avoid the distraction from the mission entailed in a divisive trial are also motivators. As such, it is simply not true that a financial payment is a “clear indication” of behavior that bordered or crossed the line. Again, it may play out that way, but a payment by itself is a sign of an organization that chose to avoid the litigation route, period. Even allegations that do not border on legal sexual harassment are routinely settled in this manner.
(I will grant that the amount of the settlement usually bears some correlation to the perceived merit of the allegations, so we should be on the lookout for any reporting there, but for a public organization like the Restaurant Association, I would not ascribe any real concern to a number below $75,000 and even then, there could be factors other than the merit that drove the number up.) Moreover, most of these cases are settled on terms that require both sides to remain silent.
Obviously, Cain’s silence when asked about being accused could be the sign of a guilty conscience, but it could also be the reaction of someone who knows that (1) he’s contractually bound not to speak to this topic and (2) speaking could open the door to the plaintiff’s right to respond in kind. No question that he’s trying to weigh the political calculus too, but we should not conflate the “have you ever been accused” question with the “did you do it” question. It is by no means clear that he will have to “cop to” sexual harassment – only having been accused.
Finally, you are correct that people who are willing to sexually harass co-workers are frequently repeat offenders – so, yes, there could be more accusers coming IF he was guilty the first time. But just keep in mind that his conduct so far doesn’t tell us much one way or the other.
The Economist has a hilarious takedown (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/rick-perry-0) of Rick Perry's new ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwwalM_fja4
"If you're looking for a slick politician or a guy with great teleprompter skills, we already have that, and he's destroying our economy", Mr Perry says, nodding toward both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. "I'm a doer, not a talker".
Not to be overly pedantic, but talking is a kind of doing. Indeed, talking is primarily how one gets things done in politics. How does Mr Perry convey that he is a doer, and not a talker? By talking. What else is there? Interpretative dance? A presidential candidate unable to best a foe in a public exchange, or to communicate his position on a complex issue when the heat is on, is about as useful as a one-legged fullback. There's a good reason Mr Perry's embarrassing debate performances have left him trailing Herman Cain by 15 points in the polls not long after he entered the race with a comfortable lead: a candidate this feckless on his feet would be eaten alive by Barack Obama in the general-election debates.
I would vote for Rick Perry if he was able to give a State of the Union speech through the medium of dance.
Slightly more relevant - why does the GOP hate teleprompters? Everybody uses teleprompters!
The Economist has a hilarious takedown (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/rick-perry-0) of Rick Perry's new ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwwalM_fja4
"If you're looking for a slick politician or a guy with great teleprompter skills, we already have that, and he's destroying our economy", Mr Perry says, nodding toward both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. "I'm a doer, not a talker".
Not to be overly pedantic, but talking is a kind of doing. Indeed, talking is primarily how one gets things done in politics. How does Mr Perry convey that he is a doer, and not a talker? By talking. What else is there? Interpretative dance? A presidential candidate unable to best a foe in a public exchange, or to communicate his position on a complex issue when the heat is on, is about as useful as a one-legged fullback. There's a good reason Mr Perry's embarrassing debate performances have left him trailing Herman Cain by 15 points in the polls not long after he entered the race with a comfortable lead: a candidate this feckless on his feet would be eaten alive by Barack Obama in the general-election debates.
the video that PanzerJaeger posted above sure proves that Perry is "doing" all sorts of things indeed.
Rick Perry... drunk or high or some combination of the two... giving a speech in New Hampshire over the weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4gz97Y9W8&feature=player_embedded#!
Ibogaine effect for sure....I hear a rumor that there was a strange Brazilian doctor traveling with him...
It is entirely conceivable -- given the known effects of Ibogaine -- that Perry's brain was almost paralyzed by hallucinations at the time; that he looked out at that crowd and saw gila monsters instead of people,
http://www.quemdisse.com.br/autores/huntersthompson.jpg
Ibogaine effect for sure....I hear a rumor that there was a strange Brazilian doctor traveling with him...
It is entirely conceivable -- given the known effects of Ibogaine -- that Perry's brain was almost paralyzed by hallucinations at the time; that he looked out at that crowd and saw gila monsters instead of people
:laugh4: The good doctor would be having a field day with the current crew of misfits.
Looks like all Romney has to do is avoid being found unconscious in a room with a dead hooker and some blow. All of his opponents are showing their political inexperience (or are just bat-:daisy: insane). One by one they shoot past him in the polls, and then fall to earth after the initial euphoria. Which is probably for the best, since Romney looks to be the only one who could be a functioning president. I don't particularly like a lot of his policies, but at least I could see myself voting for him without throwing up in my mouth.
Romney looks to be the only one who could be a functioning president.
cough ... cough .... *huntsman* ... cough ... cough ...
cough ... cough .... *huntsman* ... cough ... cough ...
Huntsman has no money, and Paul doesn't appear to exist as a person. I'm talking somewhat realistically here.
Latest Ramussen polling (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary) for South Carolina (and before you say it, I know Ramussen is unreliable for general population polls; that said, they have a good track record with GOP-only polls, so shut the heck up).
The first Rasmussen Reports poll of South Carolina’s Likely Republican Primary Voters shows Cain with 33% support, Romney at 23% and Gingrich at 15%. Texas Governor Rick Perry earns nine percent (9%) of the likely primary vote, Texas Congressman Ron Paul five percent (5%) and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann two percent (2%). Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each pick up one percent (1%), as does “some other candidate.” Ten percent (10%) remain undecided. [...]
Of those who are currently certain of their vote, Cain leads Romney by 12.
Cecil XIX
11-03-2011, 03:44
In the words of Jim Geraghty, Controversy Punishes Cain All the Way to Frontrunner Status (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/282011/controversy-punishes-cain-all-way-frontrunner-status).
Cain's raised $400,000 in 24 hours as of tuesday evening (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/nov/1/picket-cain-campaign-has-biggest-online-fundraisin/), and today his lead in the RCP Poll Average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) more then doubled from .7% to 2.0%. Ironically, Cain's rising poll numbers and fundraising are the only meaningful facts in this whole story.
Now Cain's accusing Perry, (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282094/block-perry-owes-cain-apology-leaking-allegations-katrina-trinko) Perry says it could have been Romney (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282091/perry-campaign-suggest-romney-camp-behind-cain-leaks-katrina-trinko), and there's a rumor that former White House Chief of Staff and current mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel is involved as well (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/nov/2/picket-source-rham-emanuel-involved-cain-sexual-ha/).
It's going to be an interesting week.:laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.