View Full Version : GOP Nominee
Strike For The South
05-16-2011, 20:02
Well now that Huckabee and Trump have offically bowed out who is your money on?
I'm going to go with Pawlenty, I know the tea partiers are clamoring for someone new but I don't think it'll work out that way, their power and their willingness to truly change the party is vastly overestimated
Skullheadhq
05-16-2011, 20:41
RON PAUL 2012!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-16-2011, 21:12
Resurrect Reagan?
a completely inoffensive name
05-16-2011, 22:55
Romney is the most sane and least hypocritical of them all.
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2011, 00:16
Pawlenty, Daniels, or Johnson - and hopefully a combination of two of the three when it is all said and done.
Samurai Waki
05-17-2011, 01:14
Aside from the fact that they're all going to lose, I'd say PJ is probably on the money... with Romney as a wild card.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-17-2011, 01:15
Who I would want as President? = Chris Christie (Like what I see lately and love the fact that he doesn't want the job -- healthy attitude)
Who would I like to see get the nom? = Sarah Palin (I don't think the GOP can take Obama this time around, so I'd rather see her star wane than someone more useful).
Who is likely to get the nom? = Romney (Has the funding, the organization, and all of the drecky GOP "It's his turn" crap in his favor; Gingrich will push him though, it won't be an acclamation)
Who is likely to get the nom? = Romney (Has the funding, the organization, and all of the drecky GOP "It's his turn" crap in his favor; Gingrich will push him though, it won't be an acclamation)
You know, Romney has a lot going for him, and I think at heart he's a moderate with excellent executive skills. But people don't like him. I don't understand why people don't like him, but they don't. It's very odd.
a completely inoffensive name
05-17-2011, 01:27
You know, Romney has a lot going for him, and I think at heart he's a moderate with excellent executive skills. But people don't like him. I don't understand why people don't like him, but they don't. It's very odd.
Because of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Strike For The South
05-17-2011, 01:46
God I miss Ted Kennedy
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2011, 01:57
God I miss Ted Kennedy
Ugh, why?
Scienter
05-17-2011, 02:37
I can't support the GOP in its current incarnation due to my stance on social issues. That said, the smartest thing they could do is have Romney run against Obama. Romney wouldn't be able to win a Republican primary because he's Mormon and they don't agree with his stance on health care. But, IMO he's the only candidate who has a chance of getting ANY of the independent voters. The rabid tea parties and Christian fundamentalists are great for pandering to the base, but they would lose independent voters. Romney is sane and can hold his own in a debate. If they had to, they could put a rabid fundie in the VP slot.
Because of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
He sounds like some one I could vote for.
Strike For The South
05-17-2011, 03:36
Ugh, why?
A bit a flair that I admire
He sounds like some one I could vote for.
Yup... minus forcing companies to report the number of minorites and women they employ in their yearly 10k. Not only is the idea aburd, as ten 10ks generally contain information about the financial health of the company, the auditors would have a field day verifying each person's "race".
Crazed Rabbit
05-17-2011, 04:59
Romney is the most sane and least hypocritical of them all.
Romney "State health insurance was great when I did it in Massachusetts but Obamacare is awful" Romney?
He's a politician who will say whatever he needs to in order to be elected.
Gary Johnson is my favorite - a libertarian governor from New Mexico. Unlike most GOP he actually sticks to his small government principles. He's against the ruinous drug war (unlike Obama), against the Patriot Act (unlike Obama), against indefinite detentions (unlike Obama) and for civil unions.
He actually came out against the drug war while still in office.
Though even if whoever runs against Obama is doomed, I hope it's not Palin - who will only diminish the party.
CR
Louis VI the Fat
05-17-2011, 05:12
Romney sounds like a liberal commie in that vid. Bless the nineties! :balloon2:
As for the Republican nominee, unless the economy and unemployment rate fail to improve the next eighteen months I'm not going to devote my attention to whom the GOP sends as cannon fodder. :pleased:
Louis VI the Fat
05-17-2011, 05:16
Though even if whoever runs against Obama is doomed, I hope it's not Palin - who will only diminish the party.
CRI'm beginning to think that perhaps the reverse is true too. That the GOP diminished Palin, turned a fine, relatively reasonable local governor into a rabid rightwing poster girl. A role which she liked so much she came to identify herself with it.
Centurion1
05-17-2011, 05:22
I don't even know to be honest. My favorite representatives of the Republican party at the moment are Bobby Jindall, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and Charlie Crist but they unfortunately are not running. Yeah, I realize there are no women on that list but who are my options? Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachner? Call me a sexist but I'll stick to men before I vote for them. I like Romney but I just want him to flesh out some of his moderate beliefs a little more so I know exactly what I am voting for. Also as someone stated as wrong a sit is he would never win a National election as a Mormon let alone a nomination by the Republicans. Wrong? Yes, but that is how it is right now. A woman has a better chance than a practicing Mormon at winning an election in America.
Centurion1
05-17-2011, 05:24
I'm beginning to think that perhaps the reverse is true too. That the GOP diminished Palin, turned a fine, relatively reasonable local governor into a rabid rightwing poster girl. A role which she liked so much she came to identify herself with it.
TBH, i concur with this. I believe she was a decent governor and is at the heart of it really not an unintelligent woman but has been mismanaged by her advisors and demonized by the media.
a completely inoffensive name
05-17-2011, 06:04
Romney "State health insurance was great when I did it in Massachusetts but Obamacare is awful" Romney?
He's a politician who will say whatever he needs to in order to be elected.
CR
Exactly. But so does every other politician. At least his hypocrisy is on one issue. Newt Gingrinch is claiming tthat he is all about family values when he has married 3+ times and has mistreated all of his spouses.
I don't understand why libertarian minded people even bother to run within the GOP. Libertarians do not and will not run the GOP for quite some time. The GOP panders to the rich and religious bases, I don't see what the libertarians are trying to do voting for candidates that go against their own policies. Either way according to libertarian doctrine you get "big government". Stick to your 3rd party and if enough of you leave, then the GOP will start pandering to you, not before you cost them votes.
Scienter
05-17-2011, 12:10
I don't even know to be honest. My favorite representatives of the Republican party at the moment are Bobby Jindall, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and Charlie Crist but they unfortunately are not running. Yeah, I realize there are no women on that list but who are my options? Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachner? Call me a sexist but I'll stick to men before I vote for them. I like Romney but I just want him to flesh out some of his moderate beliefs a little more so I know exactly what I am voting for. Also as someone stated as wrong a sit is he would never win a National election as a Mormon let alone a nomination by the Republicans. Wrong? Yes, but that is how it is right now. A woman has a better chance than a practicing Mormon at winning an election in America.
I don't think it's sexist; Palin and Bachmann are idiots. I'd vote for an aardvark before I'd vote for either of them.
Call me a sexist
Sorry, no. Palin and Bachmann are severely lacking as national candidates. Palin's negative polling is epic, and Bachmann is a loon.
I believe [Sarah Palin] was a decent governor and is at the heart of it really not an unintelligent woman but has been mismanaged by her advisors and demonized by the media.
I've seen this train of thought, this debate, popping up on a lot of moderate-right blogs lately. Whom to blame for the tragedy of Palin? Some argue that it was her move into the national arena that did her in (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/8492/1/). I don't know that I buy that; and the notion that she was "mismanaged"? She was famously impossible to manage (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-25/politics/palin.tension_1_sarah-palin-nicolle-wallace-tracey-schmitt?_s=PM:POLITICS).
In the end, I'm going to lend credence to the blogger Mudflats (http://www.themudflats.net/2011/05/16/the-real-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/), who has been covering the former governor since before she was a governor.
But the real question he’s asking (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/8492/1/) is — What could Palin have achieved if she had a different personality, if she were not a political opportunist and had actual integrity, if she were qualified, if she knew her stuff, if she were an effective leader, if she knew how to manage people, if she were intellectually curious, if she didn’t quit? The question Green asks is really what Sarah Palin might have achieved if she hadn’t been Sarah Palin. And it’s why “What went wrong?” is a false question. “What went wrong” was Palin being who she is – consistently and predictably opportunistic. There are times when opportunity comes from doing the right thing, but there are times when opportunity comes from doing the wrong thing. It doesn’t mean that Palin changed, it just means she was true to what drives her always – her own self-interest.
Anyway, it's all kinda moot, Palin as a political force is spent. And some of the other posters in this thread have a point, that barring unforseen circumstances Obama looks very hard to beat. But then, unforseen circumstances always happen, and "hard" is not impossible. So the Republican nominee really does matter.
Anyway, it's all kinda moot, Palin as a political force is spent. And some of the other posters in this thread have a point, that barring unforseen circumstances Obama looks very hard to beat. But then, unforseen circumstances always happen, and "hard" is not impossible. So the Republican nominee really does matter.Barring a natural disaster or terrorist attack, Obama's reelection chances will hinge on the economy. If the economy backslides he'll go down to a credible challenger. If it makes significant gains, he'll be untouchable. If it stays the same, with unemployment high and deficits massive- I think he's vulnerable.
In the end, I'm going to lend credence to the blogger Mudflats (http://www.themudflats.net/2011/05/16/the-real-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/), who has been covering the former governor since before she was a governor.Mudflats sounds like a hack to me. I'll readily admit that she's pretty much unelectable, but there's a lot of stuff that smells like BS in that posting. For example:
But the reality was that Palin was no energy expert. Her knowledge at the time of the oil and gas industry was so deficient that the legislature later passed a bill that was dubbed at the time the “No More Sarah Palin Bill.” When Republican Representative Vic Kohring stated about the legislation that “It’s critical all members of the Commission have a fundamental understanding of the industry they regulate, and this legislation helps accomplish that,” it was quite clear to whom he was referring.
My reaction to that was that the bill sounds like one industry lapdogs would pass to limit the oversight panel to industry insiders only. So who is Vic Kohring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Kohring)? Mudflats offers as support a convicted felon who was indicted for bribery and extortion. Her charges don't seem as sound at that point.
Look, I'll readily admit Palin is virtually unelectable- you never get a second chance to make a first impression and her first impression on the national stage was a disaster. I don't think there's any single reason you can point to, but if I were to generalize, I'd say she brought into the national spotlight before she was ready. That in itself wasn't necessarily insurmountable, but you also have to add to that the fact that the McCain campaign was just plain incompetent. They sheltered her from the media, which only served to make them smell blood and the interviews they did choose were just bad decisions. Palin should have said no to running on the McCain ticket, stayed as governor, got more savy and grew a thicker skin. Maybe, just maybe, she could have been a serious contender this time around. But like most politicians, she was being overly-ambitious and probably suffered from a too-high opinion of herself and her abilities.
-------
On the current slate of GOP potentials, it's really hard to say who I like. I can tell you I don't like Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee or Trump- the last two of which have already bowed out. Apparently Herman Cain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain) made a splash at a recent debate that I didn't watch, but I don't know enough about him at this point to form an opinion.
Tellos Athenaios
05-17-2011, 19:48
@Xiahou: you are missing the point spectacularly: her talent isn't with the deep insights or with the executive parts of government, hers is with the politicking and capitalising on the voter sentiment after success (or failure of others).
@Xiahou: you are missing the point spectacularly: her talent isn't with the deep insights or with the executive parts of government, hers is with the politicking and capitalising on the voter sentiment after success (or failure of others).
So.... you're telling me she's like 99% of all politicians?
Tellos Athenaios
05-17-2011, 21:28
But more pronounced. You might want to read that article in full. ~:)
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2011, 21:58
@Xiahou: you are missing the point spectacularly: her talent isn't with the deep insights or with the executive parts of government, hers is with the politicking and capitalising on the voter sentiment after success (or failure of others).
Sounds familiar. ~;)
But more pronounced. You might want to read that article in full. ~:)Yeah, I did. That's how I arrived at my conclusion. Thanks for your earnest and helpful advice though. :yes:
Hmm, while I still believe Palin is a non-starter for a general election, she's bouncing back in Republican primary polling (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55197.html). Maybe I need to retract my "spent force" evaluation? And she reportedly just sent a 400k mail solicitation for SarahPAC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/sarah-pac-sending-direct-mail-into-south-carolina/2011/05/16/AFVPIz4G_blog.html). Tea leaves very hard to read.
I thought we were going to get the Constitution changed so naturalized citizens can run for President. Arnold in 2012! ~D
Hosakawa Tito
05-19-2011, 00:01
I'd prefer Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, but neither feels ready to run yet. Doesn't matter, I'll vote for Elmer Fudd over Obama anyday.
Hmm, while I still believe Palin is a non-starter for a general election, she's bouncing back in Republican primary polling (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55197.html). Maybe I need to retract my "spent force" evaluation? And she reportedly just sent a 400k mail solicitation for SarahPAC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/sarah-pac-sending-direct-mail-into-south-carolina/2011/05/16/AFVPIz4G_blog.html). Tea leaves very hard to read.Herman Cain has some very enthusiastic supporters it seems. I still don't know much about the guy, but a glance at his Wikipedia page shows a pretty decent resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain#Business_career).
Gingrich's kamikaze like Meet the Press appearance just provided one of the best daily show segments in a couple of weeks!
nice going Newt!
a completely inoffensive name
05-20-2011, 01:13
Herman Cain has some very enthusiastic supporters it seems. I still don't know much about the guy, but a glance at his Wikipedia page shows a pretty decent resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain#Business_career).
yes, he seems like a great businessman, but what does that have to do with politics? Business experience has no bearing on political office. Being a CEO is nothing like being a president. As a CEO your decision is final and the board of directors are your friends as a president your decision is tentative and half the Senate and House hate you.
His page looked rally nice until he started saying reactionary right-wing statements just to have the public like him:
Collins tried to paint Cain as a moderate,[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_cain#cite_note-16) citing Cain's support for affirmative action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action) programs, while Cain argued that he was a conservative, noting that he opposed the legality of abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion) even in cases of rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) and incest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest).
yes, he seems like a great businessman, but what does that have to do with politics? Business experience has no bearing on political office. Being a CEO is nothing like being a president. As a CEO your decision is final and the board of directors are your friends as a president your decision is tentative and half the Senate and House hate you.
I'd rather have a seasoned busiess man who actually knows how to successfully run organization than just another souless politician with "political experience". Than again, I'd really prefer a successful businessman who is also an achieved academic.
See Michigan's new governor as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Snyder
Herman Cain has some very enthusiastic supporters it seems.
He's beginning to be noticed by the general media. Here's a lamentably short but well-thought-out evaluation (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-21/herman-cain-can-the-pizza-guy-win-it-for-the-tea-party/) of him as a candidate.
Herman Cain has "it." At pre-campaign appearances—part rally, part revival—he's had nonbelievers and businessmen alike leaping to their feet shouting "Amen!" And at high noon on Saturday at Centennial Park in Atlanta, this self-made American success story connected with 15,000 of his closest friends, who roared with approval throughout a stemwinder of a sermon, notably delivered without a teleprompter.
Announcing his candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the plainspoken but passionate Tea Party firebrand taps into a growing voter frustration. His address in Atlanta touched on economic policy, foreign policy, tax policy, the role of federal government and entitlement reform, but all wrapped in beguiling Southern charm and inspirational rhetoric about "a new American dream."
-edit-
Here's his announcement video. Not bad, not bad at all, and I give the man points for correctly saying "May God bless the United States of America," which is far less blasphemous than the usual "God bless [...]"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHomZF3JGBg
Louis VI the Fat
05-22-2011, 17:53
He's beginning to be noticed by the general media. Here's a lamentably short but well-thought-out evaluation (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-21/herman-cain-can-the-pizza-guy-win-it-for-the-tea-party/) of him as a candidate.
Herman Cain has "it." At pre-campaign appearances—part rally, part revival—he's had nonbelievers and businessmen alike leaping to their feet shouting "Amen!" And at high noon on Saturday at Centennial Park in Atlanta, this self-made American success story connected with 15,000 of his closest friends, who roared with approval throughout a stemwinder of a sermon, notably delivered without a teleprompter.
Announcing his candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the plainspoken but passionate Tea Party firebrand taps into a growing voter frustration. His address in Atlanta touched on economic policy, foreign policy, tax policy, the role of federal government and entitlement reform, but all wrapped in beguiling Southern charm and inspirational rhetoric about "a new American dream."
-edit-
Here's his announcement video. Not bad, not bad at all, and I give the man points for correctly saying "May God bless the United States of America," which is far less blasphemous than the usual "God bless [...]"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHomZF3JGBgPft. You culturally backwards Americans will never elect a Black president. We, enlightened Europeans, shall therefore continue to lecture you colonials on your social conservatism and on moral matters in general.
Speaking of 'continue', Seamus once taught us that the exact correct phrase is 'May God continue to bless the United States of America'.
Crazed Rabbit
05-22-2011, 21:06
He's beginning to be noticed by the general media. Here's a lamentably short but well-thought-out evaluation (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-21/herman-cain-can-the-pizza-guy-win-it-for-the-tea-party/) of him as a candidate.
Hey, he supports the NRA!
In rising from humble beginnings in the segregated South, graduating from Morehouse College and then Purdue University, working as a mathematician for the U.S. Navy, climbing his way up to the top of the corporate ladder at Coca-Cola, Pillsbury, Burger King, and Godfather's Pizza, heading the National Restaurant Association
Hmm, I hadn't heard of him before, but I think he's one of my favorites now.
CR
Cain is interesting. I've been doing some idle Googling, but right now the coverage is either fawning hagiography (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/22/herman-cain-president-ronald-reagan/) or mainstream gotcha (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/herman-cain-blunders-on-palestinian-right-of-return.html). Checking around to see if anyone's got a real, worthwhile profile of the man. Not finding anything worth reposting just yet.
PanzerJaeger
05-23-2011, 04:19
Saw Cain's interview with Chris Wallace this morning and was less than impressed. Wallace attempted to go beyond his polished talking points and there was nothing there. He had no real answers for seemingly simple questions about his own platform and seemed surprised that anyone would ask specifically how he would fix the debt situation, etc. The man had no plan for Afghanistan; and by that I don't mean his plan was crap, but that he had no plan at all and seemed proud of it. (His excuse was that he couldn't even formulate a conceptual stance on the issue without having access to the classified information the president has.) He didn't even know what 'right of return' referred to when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
I still like T-Paw, but he doesn't seem to be garnering much support - not sure why. Huntsman's speech in New Hampshire was pretty good.
[Cain] had no real answers for seemingly simple questions about his own platform and seemed surprised that anyone would ask specifically how he would fix the debt situation, etc. The man had no plan for Afghanistan; and by that I don't mean his plan was crap, but that he had no plan at all and seemed proud of it. [...] He didn't even know what 'right of return' referred to when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Well, that's disappointing. The last thing the race needs is another know-nothing.
-edit-
Haven't time to watch it yet, but this appears to be the interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX1zTR7bFpM
Yeah, I realize there are no women on that list but who are my options? Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachner? Call me a sexist but I'll stick to men before I vote for them.
That's a far more enlightened opinion than trying to pretend that Palin and Bachmann are feminist :yes:
I like Romney but I just want him to flesh out some of his moderate beliefs a little more so I know exactly what I am voting for. Also as someone stated as wrong a sit is he would never win a National election as a Mormon let alone a nomination by the Republicans. Wrong? Yes, but that is how it is right now. A woman has a better chance than a practicing Mormon at winning an election in America.
There are six Mormons in the Senate. Sure, they're all from Utah and the vicinity, but they are becoming more integrated into American society. And their beliefs aren't that much more unusual than any other religion.
I'd rather have a seasoned busiess man who actually knows how to successfully run organization than just another souless politician with "political experience". Than again, I'd really prefer a successful businessman who is also an achieved academic
A political operative is far more likely to get stuff done in government than a businessman. Sure, the former might be slimy, but it's not a necessary condition for a professional politician.
Here's an overview (http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/23/republicans_2012_president); a bit harsh on the current crop of candidates, IMHO. Reminder: Nobody knew who Bill Clinton was. "Not nationally known" seems like a poor basis for writing someone off.
Everything about Daniels suggests that he’d be a perfectly fine general election candidate -- generic and inoffensive enough to defeat Obama if economic anxiety is high and voters are looking to toss Obama out.
The same cannot be said for most of the other candidates now in the GOP mix. Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Paul and Johnson all flunk the basic viability test. All of them are far too ideological, too polarizing, or too inexperienced (or some combination of the three) to be good November bets. They each, in their own way, evoke Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck, whose profound deficiencies cost Republicans statewide elections they should have won last fall. It is unimaginable that the GOP’s elites will unite behind any of them in 2012. [...]
Of the remaining candidates, only Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman pass this basic test, which is why it’s so likely that one of them will end up winning. The scarcity of options for GOP elites is one of the reasons I’ve argued Romney can overcome his "healthcare problem" -- the fact that he signed (and refuses to apologize for) a universal coverage law with an individual mandate when he was governor of Massachusetts. Elites may have their doubts about Romney, but they know he can win (again, provided the general election climate is right) and they know he’ll be a team player. They may not be thrilled with the idea of nominating him, but he’ll do. And that may be good enough -- especially when you consider how little enthusiasm Pawlenty, who has been running aggressively and trying extremely hard to capitalize on Romney’s healthcare problem, has thus far stirred. Pawlenty may end up being the "good enough" candidate too, but right now he is surviving only on potential.
PanzerJaeger
05-23-2011, 18:35
Love it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i66q1f3M3w
a completely inoffensive name
05-23-2011, 22:19
Come on PJ, I expected you would be rational enough not to buy into a two minute cheesy ad.
He says he will talk about solutions...herp derp lets hear them bro.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
05-23-2011, 22:44
The GOP canditians are lousy. Good luck trying to beat Obama next year. :juggle2:
Samurai Waki
05-24-2011, 02:24
If I was alive to recollect the 1938 Elections, I'd be feeling a very strong sense of deja vu right now.
Strike For The South
05-24-2011, 04:34
Love it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i66q1f3M3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdtejCR413c
A political operative is far more likely to get stuff done in government than a businessman. Sure, the former might be slimy, but it's not a necessary condition for a professional politician.
Get what done exactly? Many of these political operatives I see don't seem to understand how things work in the real world.
Samurai Waki
05-24-2011, 06:22
The thing that seems to be missing from all the contenders so far (Except for perhaps Romney) is Charisma... they all sound like generic GOP Sound bits when an issue is raised. Right now would be an especially good time for a Republican Presidential Contender to stop toeing the same typical party lines. People don't like voting for a leader they perceive as being "an insider" as it implies weakness of character.
PanzerJaeger
05-24-2011, 06:28
Come on PJ, I expected you would be rational enough not to buy into a two minute cheesy ad.
He says he will talk about solutions...herp derp lets hear them bro.
Read the thread bro, and the couple of others we've had on the subject. I've been favorable towards T-Paw for months, and long before the video was released. I posted it because Pawlenty officially kicked off his campaign today. I liked the video because it seems to indicate that he will make entitlement reform the centerpiece of his campaign, which, imo, is the single most important issue threatening the long term viability of the nation and one which the current president has not only shown no desire to seriously address, but has made considerably worse.
He also seems to be taking the whole 'truth' theme seriously too. He called for ending ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and is scheduled to speak in front of seniors in Florida about the necessity of making changes to Medicare. Bold moves...
Another thought. The TEA Party has been relentlessly dogged for years now by the usual suspects in the media for supposed racist intentions, despite little solid evidence. Guess who the current TEA Party favorite is? :beam:
a completely inoffensive name
05-24-2011, 07:26
Read the thread bro, and the couple of others we've had on the subject. I've been favorable towards T-Paw for months, and long before the video was released. I posted it because Pawlenty officially kicked off his campaign today. I liked the video because it seems to indicate that he will make entitlement reform the centerpiece of his campaign, which, imo, is the single most important issue threatening the long term viability of the nation and one which the current president has not only shown no desire to seriously address, but has made considerably worse.
He also seems to be taking the whole 'truth' theme seriously too. He called for ending ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and is scheduled to speak in front of seniors in Florida about the necessity of making changes to Medicare. Bold moves...
Another thought. The TEA Party has been relentlessly dogged for years now by the usual suspects in the media for supposed racist intentions, despite little solid evidence. Guess who the current TEA Party favorite is? :beam:
Lol doesn't matter if you have been excited for this dude for months. The video said nothing bro. I am excited about that new zombie game Dead Island but I'm not gonna get all infatuated from the trailers.
PJ, I am not trying to bash Republicans for the sake of bashing Republicans when I say this but... every single republican has been and is going to say that the debt and entitlement programs are the biggest threat to our well being today. They say it for political points, just like when Obama said he was going to close Guantanamo bay. It's pandering. He can talk about ending subsidies here and there and about restructuring and reforming bu until he gives a concrete plan, it is just a talking point. One that is expected of a Republican candidate and one that he will probably break.
The part of about little racist intentions is wrong but we have had that conversation before. I see the bigger meaning (the real meaning) behind the language that the tea party came out with during 2008, 2009 and early 2010 and you reject that there is a bigger meaning behind the word "kenyan".
If we want to be honest about what is threatening the long term viability of the country then let us be realistic here. The US is not a fragile country. The debt will not suddenly reach some unknown poisonous level. Social Security is actually fine until 2033-2045 depending on where you get your numbers, it is only medicare that is really needing a good look over right now because the possibility of it's funds exceeding its costs could happen as soon as 2019.
Our empire right now is too big. Our defense budget could be cut by a fourth and still be paying out more then the vast majority of the rest of world combined when it comes to defense spending. The crisis causing this medicare problem is high medical costs coupled with the wave of baby boomers that will slowly subside sometime over the next 30-35 years.
Let's look at this chart:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png
And we can see that the unsustainable reaches of Johnson's Great Society are from an unstable shift in the population birth rate, where the baby boomers created a peak that must be fulfilled by the newer generations that were not born at such high rates. However, the baby boomers will eventually die, thus making this scenario an unfortunate but ultimately temporary problem that will be gone in the long run, no matter how we tackle the situation.
The entitlement program isn't a problem of funding or spending or taxing or anything that Republicans or Democrats want to portray it as. The entitlement problem of the next 30 years is a problem of priorities. Nothing more. If we divert 1/4th of our defense budget to social security, then the social security situation will be solved given we also make some minor tweaks here or there like paying less towards high income individuals who don't even need the SS paycheck.
Medicare will not be solved by the defense budget shift, but that is because the situation with medicare is from a broken health care system in the first place not from any inherent government wastefulness or problem with the structure of medicare itself.
Our health care system is a patchwork of an HMO system that has little to not incentive to provide good coverage, laws that promote a monopoly of a few health insurance companies which accordingly jack up the price and try to kick sick people off coverage since there is little stopping them from doing so and well intentioned but ultimately hurtful laws and regulations that promote wasteful use of hospital resources.
All problems regarding entitlement stem from the health care issue and empire of defense spending, the health care issue is something that Obama has tried to tackle. Ironically, he tackled with Republican policy from the 90s and got chewed out for it, because the Republicans simply didn't care enough about the country to accept their own ideas from 20 years ago (government mandate of insurance).
All other solutions of trying to restructure the government itself is pure political ideology and not pragmatism working. It is thought candy to those small-government minded citizens who never seemed to read too closely to Adams and other pioneers of free market thinking and missed out on the part where their classical liberalism background produced statements supporting the use of government within the economy as long as it ends up serving a role that protects the benefits of a spontaneous economic interaction between individuals (citizen or corporate) without the nasty self destructive side effects that could ultimately lead to removal of such spontaneous interactions (such as natural monopolies forming).
Whoo, that was a long post. Sorry about the rambling there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png
Strike For The South
05-24-2011, 08:00
I just want to see a debate between Paul, Palin, and Huntsman
The lulz, they would be had
a completely inoffensive name
05-24-2011, 08:01
I just want to see a debate between Paul, Palin, and Huntsman
The lulz, they would be had
Need to throw in the Bachmann and you got yourself comedy gold.
Strike For The South
05-24-2011, 08:07
https://img31.imageshack.us/img31/5743/479pxbachmann2011.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/31/479pxbachmann2011.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)
I would, provided she didn't talk. The midwestern accent makes me want to punch kittens
PanzerJaeger
05-24-2011, 08:47
Lol doesn't matter if you have been excited for this dude for months. The video said nothing bro. I am excited about that new zombie game Dead Island but I'm not gonna get all infatuated from the trailers.
'All infatuated'? Are you serious? I guess I should have said 'I'm generally in agreement with the theme of this video but I do not have an irrational passion for it' to avoid any confusion. There's literalism and then there's just trolling.
I'm also not sure why you would expect a 3 minute campaign rollout video to include detailed policy proposals, which are pretty easy to find (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/a-first-look-at-pawlentycare/68754/). :inquisitive:
The part of about little racist intentions is wrong but we have had that conversation before. I see the bigger meaning (the real meaning) behind the language that the tea party came out with during 2008, 2009 and early 2010 and you reject that there is a bigger meaning behind the word "kenyan".
I don't even know what any of this means.
As to the rest of your post, if I wanted to put my head in the sand and pretend like 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities will pay for themselves, I'd be spending my time at Kos. I don't.
Strike For The South
05-24-2011, 08:58
Bros, let's stop sniping
I'm sure Kos is just a bad habit for ACIN, Hell I still haven't kicked Drudge
a completely inoffensive name
05-24-2011, 09:04
'All infatuated'? Are you serious? I guess I should have said 'I'm generally in agreement with the theme of this video but I do not have an irrational passion for it' to avoid any confusion. There's literalism and then there's just trolling.
You said "Love it" in reference to the video and that was it. I guess I interpreted that differently then what you meant. When you put those two words there with nothing else behind it, all I thought when I watched the video was, "Hmmm, why is he loving this? I thought he would want some more substance."
That's my bad. I apologize.
I'm also not sure why you would expect a 3 minute campaign rollout video to include detailed policy proposals, which are pretty easy to find (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/a-first-look-at-pawlentycare/68754/). :inquisitive:
I wasn't expecting detailed policy proposals in a 3 minute campaign rollout video, I was just expecting that any video that you would post here would have more meat on the bone, and not be a standard campaign rollout video. I respect you PJ, you got balls, you own and use guns that half I people I know would be too scared to even be in the same room with. Also, you got some brains behind your opinion. More then the average voter. Maybe I just expect too much from people on this forum.
I don't even know what any of this means.
Reference to a thread that is old by internet standards. I will see if I can find a link, but there was a conversation couple months back (maybe back in mid 2010 right before the midterm elections) regarding the TEA party and I made a post talking about some of the racist terms they were using and you chided me for making links between "Birth of a Nation" to a modern political movement like the TEA Party.
As to the rest of your post, if I wanted to put my head in the sand and pretend like 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities will pay for themselves, I'd be spending my time at Kos. I don't.
Well, PJ this is where I hope to differ from your average Kos lurker (never have even been there myself but that is beside the point). What is your argument on the nature of the entitlement crisis and what is the solution you would like to see implemented.
I don't see my view of the situation as left leaning at all. I don't want to see taxes raised to pay for the shortfall and I argued that much of the problem on the medicare/healthcare issue is from too much government protecting insurance companies and implementing systems like the HMO system. My argument actually seems more libertarian to me but maybe I have a distorted view of what the libertarians position is. Enlighten me please.
Also, thank you for the link, I will take the time to read it.
PanzerJaeger
05-24-2011, 10:37
You said "Love it" in reference to the video and that was it. I guess I interpreted that differently then what you meant. When you put those two words there with nothing else behind it, all I thought when I watched the video was, "Hmmm, why is he loving this? I thought he would want some more substance."
That's my bad. I apologize.
I wasn't expecting detailed policy proposals in a 3 minute campaign rollout video, I was just expecting that any video that you would post here would have more meat on the bone, and not be a standard campaign rollout video. I respect you PJ, you got balls, you own and use guns that half I people I know would be too scared to even be in the same room with. Also, you got some brains behind your opinion. More then the average voter. Maybe I just expect too much from people on this forum.
Well I appreciate the sentiment, but shooting guns is only scary when people are shooting back. :beam:
Unfortunately I haven't had much time to devote to detailed discussions on much of anything lately. I spent some time putting the Gunrunner thread together, but it was promptly DOA.
I just posted the video because it seemed relevant as he jumped in today and it was on Google news and the message was somewhat refreshing. It doesn't get any deeper than that.
Reference to a thread that is old by internet standards. I will see if I can find a link, but there was a conversation couple months back (maybe back in mid 2010 right before the midterm elections) regarding the TEA party and I made a post talking about some of the racist terms they were using and you chided me for making links between "Birth of a Nation" to a modern political movement like the TEA Party.
Oh ok. It just seems funny to me that some of the most strident TEA Party backed candidates are black. Allen West is from an ultra conservative Florida district and Cain has recieved far more support from the far right than any of the (white) establishment candidates out there.
I was at a pigeon shoot over the weekend at a plantation in rural Alabama and was amazed at the enthusiasm Cain received. It was quite surreal to listen on as the entirely white group of well off businessmen whose fathers were most assuredly Wallace voters claim Cain was the only true conservative in the race.
Well, PJ this is where I hope to differ from your average Kos lurker (never have even been there myself but that is beside the point). What is your argument on the nature of the entitlement crisis and what is the solution you would like to see implemented.
My biggest issue with entitlements is that they have moved from actual safety nets to... well... entitlements. A safety net should be a measure of social insurance against the possibility of falling on hard times, not a retirement windfall that sends you to Greece every summer.
Social Security and Medicare taxes should be cut in half, but the benefits should only be made available to people who have a solid work history but enter their final stage of life in poverty. Just like home insurance, if your house never burns down, you never see any of that money back.
If the safety nets only applied to the 40 million Americans in poverty (and catastrophic illnesses that would put a person into poverty) and the government incentivized personal savings throughout a worker's lifetime (plus implemented other simple fixes like interstate insurance purchases, liability reform, pay-for-performance metrics, transferable insurance, etc.), they would be far less cumbersome.
I don't see my view of the situation as left leaning at all. I don't want to see taxes raised to pay for the shortfall and I argued that much of the problem on the medicare/healthcare issue is from too much government protecting insurance companies and implementing systems like the HMO system. My argument actually seems more libertarian to me but maybe I have a distorted view of what the libertarians position is. Enlighten me please.
Also, thank you for the link, I will take the time to read it.
I was referring to the tone of your post, which seemed to minimize the entitlement/debt issues we're facing. Obviously they're not as dire as the far right projects, but they shouldn't be ignored in hopes that they will somehow correct themselves either.
If I was alive to recollect the 1938 Elections, I'd be feeling a very strong sense of deja vu right now.
Hmm, not getting the reference. Could you flesh that thought out a little?
simple fixes like interstate insurance purchases, liability reform, pay-for-performance metrics, transferable insurance, etc.
You posted enough points for three or four threads, but I'll just point out that when it comes to healthcare, 2% of gross expenses go to liability and liability insurance; 21% go to administration (http://images.medicalbillingandcoding.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Medical-Costs-2.jpg). I'm getting a bit tired of hearing how TORT reform is going to rein in healthcare expense inflation when this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false (http://www.scnursinghomelaw.com/2009/04/articles/tort-reform/cmajs-study-disproves-tort-reform-myths/).
-edit-
Getting back on-topic, here's an encouraging evaluation (http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/22/reality-bites-the-gop-after-daniels-and-after-2012/) of PJ's own Tim Pawlentey:
If a Tea Party true believer like Sarah Palin or even former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wins the nomination, and then Obama wins the election, the Republican Party might have a Goldwater moment where it starts to reconsider its small-tent extremism. [...]
There is one other possibility, and that’s Tim Pawlenty. [...] he is the kind of candidate who could help the GOP gloss over its internal contradictions, uniting Tea Party bomb-throwers who want a holy war against government and establishment types who want a plausible Chamber of Commerce nominee. And his bland demeanor could help make the election all about Obama, so that Republicans wouldn’t have to decide what they think about reality until 2013.
Maybe he’s the Fred Thompson of 2012—logical on paper but a dud on the trail. And as Scherer says, it’s definitely Romney’s turn. But I’m not so sure Romney will get his turn.
Finally, here's NRO's take on the five biggest challenges (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267874/t-paws-five-greatest-challenges-ramesh-ponnuru) for a Pawlenty candidacy.
PanzerJaeger
05-24-2011, 20:28
You posted enough points for three or four threads, but I'll just point out that when it comes to healthcare, 2% of gross expenses go to liability and liability insurance; 21% go to administration (http://images.medicalbillingandcoding.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Medical-Costs-2.jpg). I'm getting a bit tired of hearing how TORT reform is going to rein in healthcare expense inflation when this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false (http://www.scnursinghomelaw.com/2009/04/articles/tort-reform/cmajs-study-disproves-tort-reform-myths/).
Well, the costs and benefits (http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/litrefm.pdf) of liability reform are certainly debatable...
The litigation and malpractice insurance problem raids the wallet of every
American. Money spent on malpractice premiums (and the litigation costs that
largely determine premiums) raises health care costs. Doctors alone spent $6.3
billion last year to obtain coverage.27 Hospitals and nursing homes spent
additional billions of dollars.
The litigation system also imposes large indirect costs on the health care
system. Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable
liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The
leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic
damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting
quality of care.28 This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year.
These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional
2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.29
The costs of the runaway litigation system are paid by all Americans,
through higher premiums for health insurance (which reduces workers’ take
home pay if the insurance is provided by an employer), higher out-of-pocket
payments when they obtain care, and higher taxes.
The Federal Government--and thus every taxpayer who pays federal
income and payroll taxes--also pays for health care, in a number of ways. It
provides direct care, for instance, to members of the armed forces, veterans, and
patients served by the Indian Health Service. It provides funding for the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. It funds Community Health Centers. It also
provides assistance, through the tax system, for workers who obtain insurance
through their employment. The direct cost of malpractice coverage and the
indirect cost of defensive medicine increases the amount the Federal
Government must pay through these various channels, it is estimated, by $28.6-
47.5 billion per year.30 If reasonable limits were placed on non-economic
damages to reduce defensive medicine, it would reduce the amount of taxpayers’
money the Federal Government spends by $25.3-44.3 billion per year.31 This is
a very significant amount. It would more than fund a prescription drug benefit for
Medicare beneficiaries and help uninsured Americans obtain coverage through a
refundable health credit.32
...but that's why liability reform would be only a small part of PJ's overall healthcare initiative, with the main thrust being a conversion to an insurance-type structure.
Getting back on-topic, here's an encouraging evaluation (http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/22/reality-bites-the-gop-after-daniels-and-after-2012/) of PJ's own Tim Pawlentey:
Yikes, that seems more like damnation with faint praise to me. :laugh4:
Yikes, that seems more like damnation with faint praise to me.
Another faint damnation from another conservative blog (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/05/23/pawlentys-dilemma-ii/) (or, "We have seen the future and it is meh"):
Pawlenty’s candidacy doesn’t have any obvious rationale. In fact, the former Minnesota governor has trouble coming up with a reason why he is running at all. He doesn’t unnerve any major constituency in the party in the way that Huntsman does and Daniels did, but he isn’t that closely identified with any of them. He inspires neither intense loyalty nor especially strong dislike. Pawlenty is a compromise candidate in a party that is largely tired of having to settle for what they can get. The few things that distinguish him and make him somewhat interesting to some conservatives, such as his working-class background and conversion to evangelical Protestanism, are things that make him seem to be just enough of a working-class Huckabee-like populist to give some Republicans pause. This means that people with money are probably going to be disinclined to give some of that money to him just as they were unwilling to support Huckabee financially.
Meanwhile, Pawlenty’s actual record is so reliably and generically mainstream Republican that he appears merely adequate rather than exciting.
Unlike Huckabee, Pawlenty projects neither the charisma to sustain a campaign through free media appearances, nor does he have the natural opening to build networks of evangelical volunteers that the former pastor had. Imagine a campaign almost as cash-strapped as Huckabee’s, but with an unremarkable, plodding figure at the center of it instead of the bass guitar-playing evangelical comedian that Huckabee played throughout the 2007-08 contest. That will give you a good idea of the obstacles that await Pawlenty.
Every 2012 candidate needs more Borat, in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOydN3Z-PC4
Well heck, maybe she is running. Hard to imagine the purpose of a two-hour reintroduction film (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) otherwise. I dunno.
The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run.
Bannon, a former naval officer and ex-Goldman Sachs banker, sees his documentary as the first step in Palin's effort to rebuild her image in the eyes of voters who may have soured on her, yet might reconsider if old caricatures begin to fade. The film will also appeal to staunch Palin supporters who have long celebrated her biting rhetoric and conservative populism yet know little about her record in Alaska and have perhaps written her off as presidential material.
"This film is a call to action for a campaign like 1976: Reagan vs. the establishment," Bannon told RealClearPolitics. "Let's have a good old-fashioned brouhaha."
An argument for taking Herman Cain seriously (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/the-simple-case-for-taking-herman-cain-seriously/):
What’s especially interesting about Mr. Cain’s standing is that he polls at 8 percent despite being familiar to only about one-third of Republican voters, according to supplementary Gallup data. Of those voters who are familiar with him, 24 percent have him as their first choice. That’s the best figure for any candidate in the Republican field:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/5763274080_88844ac416_z.jpg
[...] I would not suggest that Mr. Cain is one of the leaders. But in a field where the three insider favorites to win the race — Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Jon Huntsman — collectively poll at just 25 percent, and where some Republicans seem to be pining for an outsider (perhaps even outside-the-box) choice, he’s the freshest face. Although his credentials as an elected official are obviously nonexistent, that also means he has less baggage to run from.
Mr. Cain seems to be taking his bid seriously, unlike (for instance) Donald Trump. Polls like these ought to ensure that he gets at least a fair amount of media attention, assuming the press is doing its job properly.
He has good chance of having some influence on the race — perhaps like Mike Huckabee in 2008, a candidate with whom he shares some similarities. And I don’t think the possibility that he could actually win the nomination can so easily be dismissed.
Well heck, maybe she is running. Hard to imagine the purpose of a two-hour reintroduction film (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) otherwise. I dunno.
TV writers everywhere are praying to the comedy Gods she does run.
talk about jokes that write themselfs.
a completely inoffensive name
05-29-2011, 12:25
Alright well after a busy week, I have a three day weekend and I finally got around to reviewing Panzer's article he linked about Pawlenty. He is in a much better light in my eyes, although to be honest some of his health care reform was government involvement operating in similar scope to health care exchange provisions in "Obamacare".
Ultimately he is trying to promote more competition among hospitals, make hospitals more efficient and tries to give more info to consumers, yet that doesn't ultimately tackle the problem with costs. Insurance companies are a cartel. It doesn't matter if you can pick and choose which ever doctor you want, the insurance company is still in complete control of your money and whether or not you can spend it however you want, and whether or not you will be paying them more for less coverage or not.
Miley Cyrus versus Rick Santorum -- IT'S ON (http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1105/miley_cyrus_knocks_rick_santorum.html)!
Cyrus isn't a fan of Urban Outfitters after stories emerged alleging that the store has copied jewelry designs, so she pointed out that the company's president had contributed to Santorum.
“IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH’ – Rick Santorum UO contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign” tweeted Cyrus, mocking Santorum for some earlier remarks regarding gay marriage.
She also wrote about Urban Outfitters and Santorum: “Not only do they steal from artists but every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality.”
It may not be the best news for Santorum, who is expected to launch his campaign next week since Cyrus has over a million Twitter followers. Fortunately for him, however, most are probably too young to vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV8HFHkX3PA&hd=1
I absolutely adore this ad. A set of sensible, thoughtful, well-considered statements by Huntsman are bundled together into an campaign ad - against him.
Miley Cyrus versus Rick Santorum It's not like Santorum ever had a serious chance to begin with.... Of course, now that he's incurred Miley's wrath, he's truly finished. :yes:
In other news, apparently one-upping Pawlenty (while still not running) Palin says 'eliminate all energy subsidies (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/31/palin_eliminate_all_energy_subsidies.html)'. Meanwhile Romney, ever the panderer, declares "I Support the Subsidy of Ethanol (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/27/romney_in_iowa_i_support_the_subsidy_of_ethanol_110011.html)".
Just one more reason why I can't stomach Romney.....
I've heard of micro-marketing, but this is ridiculous (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/jon-huntsmans-supporter.html).
Crazed Rabbit
06-02-2011, 02:01
Anyone else annoyed by the 24-7 coverage of Palin while serious minded candidates like Gary Johnson are ignored? Argh.
CR
Louis VI the Fat
06-02-2011, 03:06
24-7 coverage of Palin I say it's a plot by Democrats. The more focus on Palin, the less platform there is for other GOP candidates. They'll all end up with single digit name recognition. :beam:
Yay, I too managed yet another 'mention only Palin by name' post in a GOP thread, as they have thought us activists at Moveon.org. Forget about being a mod, I'm going to spam every GOP thread into mindless Palin talk. :jumping:
It is just a plot to keep serious GOP candidates at bay. And there's nothing you conservatives can do about it. Save, perhaps, by creating your own 'Palin': by promoting a pointless Democrat candidate with tremendous magnetic appeal to the basic instincts of the hardcore base, but who is otherwise completely useless, inexperienced, unelectable. Say, by digging up an overtly ambitious young Black dude with a terrorist Muslim name and a single teenage mother. Or some such ridiculous.
I say it's a plot by Democrats. The more focus on Palin, the less platform there is for other GOP candidates. They'll all end up with single digit name recognition. :beam:
Yay, I too managed yet another 'mention only Palin by name' post in a GOP thread, as they have thought us activists at Moveon.org. Forget about being a mod, I'm going to spam every GOP thread into mindless Palin talk. :jumping:
It is just a plot to keep serious GOP candidates at bay. And there's nothing you conservatives can do about it. Save, perhaps, by creating your own 'Palin': by promoting a pointless Democrat candidate with tremendous magnetic appeal to the basic instincts of the hardcore base, but who is otherwise completely useless, inexperienced, unelectable. Say, by digging up an overtly ambitious young Black dude with a terrorist Muslim name and a single teenage mother. Or some such ridiculous.
Maybe they can prop up Charlie Sheen as a Democratic candidate....I think he's the only one who can stack up to Palin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV8HFHkX3PA&hd=1
Huntsman for GOP Nominee.
Samurai Waki
06-03-2011, 05:17
soooo sickeningly sappy and irrelevant...
Huntsman for GOP Nominee.
Unfortunately, looks like Huntsman is a complete and utter non-starter (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/polls-find-huntsman-unacceptable-to-many-in-republican-base/) for the GOP base.
Mr. Huntsman has taken a number of positions that are bound to be unacceptable to large swaths of the Republican electorate. Among them are expressing support for Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, endorsing an individual mandate for health insurance, and securing Utah’s participation in a regional cap-and-trade program. Mr. Hunstman also holds a moderate position on gay marriage, having endorsed civil unions for same-sex couples. And he served as President Obama’s ambassador to China.
Many of the Republican candidates have taken at least one position that will give them problems with the conservative base — for instance, Mr. Romney’s passage of a Massachusetts health care bill similar to Barack Obama’s, Mr. Pawlenty’s endorsement of cap-and-trade, and Mr. Cain’s backing of the 2008 federal bailout. But none of the major contenders have the plethora of moderate positions that Mr. Huntsman has held. If these initial numbers hold as Mr. Huntsman continues to introduce himself to the electorate, and half of Republicans consider him an unacceptable alternative, his chances of winning the nomination will be near zero.
Unfortunately, looks like Huntsman is a complete and utter non-starter (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/polls-find-huntsman-unacceptable-to-many-in-republican-base/) for the GOP base.
It's a shame, even though that is meant to be an "attack advert" it actually makes Huntsman look like a good candidate. Also makes you think "If those are the bad things, the good things must be really good!", then you have to sit down and realise whoever made that video probably has some pretty skewed priorities so when Huntsman makes a comment of: "I regularly sacrifice aborted fetus to cthulhu", they probably classify it as a positive.
ajaxfetish
06-10-2011, 00:15
It makes me want to cry that the things I think would make a great executive are the same things that make a non-starter candidate.
Ajax
Looks like Newt's campaign is imploding in an impressive manner. Probably for the best.
a completely inoffensive name
06-10-2011, 12:29
Newt is one of the worst of the worst. Pure politician that puts ideology over everything else. That kind of crap destroys nations.
For those of you who "want your country back":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIr3szA360
PanzerJaeger
06-11-2011, 05:45
Those production values are nothing compared to my Tim's awesome 24 style vids. Just sayin'. :grin:
Seriously, though, I think Mitt got a huge boost this week with all the negative economic news. It looks like this is essentially the economy Obama will have during the election, and it looks nothing like Reagan's morning in America. Healthcare may not even be a major focus if people are still hurting this badly come primary season.
poor, poor Huntsman...
Good news: New favourite GOP candidate. Bad news: It's Huntsman
Crazed Rabbit
06-11-2011, 09:57
Last I heard, Johnson was going to be excluded from the next GOP debate.
Not Gingrich or Bachmann, just the two term governor.
:wall:
CR
Newt is one of the worst of the worst. Pure politician that puts ideology over everything else. That kind of crap destroys nations.
I remember Newt as an opportunist and a partisan hack, more than an ideologue. Nonetheless, I can't think of a Republican more deserving of a campaign implosion.
Okay, I know it's unwise (bordering on psychotic) to make predictions this far out, but I'm getting the feeling that the Republican nomination is Pawlentey's to lose. Just the way things are lining up ... I know he's not at the top of any polls, but I know it won't be Romney or Bachman, Cain is a real talent but prone to gaffes and fantasy, Giuliani is far too liberal for the base, Christie and JB won't run ...
... yeah, the only thing between Pawlenty and the nomination is a Perry run. Well, that and hundreds of thousands of votes. But I got a feeling about this guy.
Centurion1
06-11-2011, 16:02
That's funny all the polls I have seen are putting Romney on top.
Michele Bachmann officially a candidate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rep-michele-bachmann-says-she-is-officially-a-candidate-for-gop-nomination-for-president/2011/06/13/AGcZnkTH_story.html)
out in the distance, you can hear the sound of late night comedy writers popping champagne corks.
Michele Bachmann officially a candidate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rep-michele-bachmann-says-she-is-officially-a-candidate-for-gop-nomination-for-president/2011/06/13/AGcZnkTH_story.html)
out in the distance, you can hear the sound of late night comedy writers popping champagne corks.
Howard Kurtz seems to think she stole the show on last night's debate (I didn't watch it).
I want to like Bachmann, but some of her views are a little out there for me. I think she's pretty sound on economic policy, she was right on Libya, pro-life is good.... but intelligent design? Really?
She was at her most passionate on abortion, defending the “sanctity of human life.” But her toughest moment came when a questioner asked how she would balance her opposition to gay marriage with her advocacy of states’ rights.
Bachmann ducked at first, saying she believes in the 10th Amendment and also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. When pressed, she said that as president she would not campaign to overturn state laws she didn’t like. But she softened her hard-line image by noting that she was raised by a single mother after her parents’ divorce. That's a great answer in my opinion. If she's willing to apply that same logic to some things like her views on ID, I'd be pleased.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-14-2011, 15:51
Howard Kurtz seems to think she stole the show on last night's debate (I didn't watch it).
I want to like Bachmann, but some of her views are a little out there for me. I think she's pretty sound on economic policy, she was right on Libya, pro-life is good.... but intelligent design? Really?
That's a great answer in my opinion. If she's willing to apply that same logic to some things like her views on ID, I'd be pleased.
Professing a belief in Intelligent Design is, functionally, little more than an assertion that you still believe in God despite God being outside the rubric of Science.
Professing a belief in Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) is, functionally, little more than an assertion that you still believe in God despite God being outside the rubric of Science.
Not quite true, as I understand it. ID posits that life is too complex to have evolved by natural means, and therefore supernatural intervention is not only possible, but necessary. Also, ID proponents usually want their religious views taught in public schools. ID can be legitimately described as a new iteration of creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism). Many biologists are theists without being ID adherents, so I find your definition kinda incomplete.
Did anybody actually watch last night's debate? I was traveling. Morning reports are that T-Paw did himself no favors (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56904.html).
Seamus Fermanagh
06-14-2011, 16:42
Not quite true, as I understand it. ID posits that life is too complex to have evolved by natural means, and therefore supernatural intervention is not only possible, but necessary. Also, ID proponents usually want their religious views taught in public schools. ID can be legitimately described as a new iteration of creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism). Many biologists are theists without being ID adherents, so I find your definition kinda incomplete.
A fair point, and I was simplifying things. ID's assertion about the "too complex" aspect of things is outside science in that science labels such things as unknowns and does not provide any explanation -- it is simply a direction for research to focus upon. The ID folks, of course, view this as the aegis of a creator. Teaching ID in schools would prove interesting, however. Taught in a science class (and therefore within the framework of science) it would be discussable as a weak theory at best. Teaching it in philosophy would involve questioning science itself as an equal and competing philosophy (while an interesting argument, this is well past basic education).
PanzerJaeger
06-15-2011, 04:34
Cannot stand Bachmann. Of all the promising TEA Party types to emerge in the last two years, she's the one that runs?
Did anybody actually watch last night's debate? I was traveling. Morning reports are that T-Paw did himself no favors.
I watched about 20 minutes and that was all I could stand. John King made it just about unbearable.
I'm still favoring T-Paw at this point. I don't think CNN appreciated the discipline all of the candidates showed in keeping the focus on the president and his record, and was looking to stir up some drama. Good for T-Paw in not taking the bait, despite the best attempts of that dolt of a moderator.
http://vimeo.com/25130802
DAWN OF THE FIRST DAY
- 144 HOURS REMAIN -
Crazed Rabbit
06-16-2011, 03:44
The Daily Show:
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:389599
CR
http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/06/debate1.jpg
a completely inoffensive name
06-16-2011, 09:54
I remember Newt as an opportunist and a partisan hack, more than an ideologue. Nonetheless, I can't think of a Republican more deserving of a campaign implosion.
He is an opportunist for his ideology. I need to find the original source where I got this but I recall reading a moment when his second or third wife (how many has he had?) asked him how he could continue to cheat and yet hold family values up as something sacrilege. He replied something along the lines of how the idea is bigger than him and it doesn't matter if he breaks it as long as he manages to get America to follow it.
The Daily Show:
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:389599
CR
That was brilliant :D
Teaching ID in schools would prove interesting, however. Taught in a science class (and therefore within the framework of science) it would be discussable as a weak theory at best. Teaching it in philosophy would involve questioning science itself as an equal and competing philosophy (while an interesting argument, this is well past basic education).
As if she had been reading this thread, Michelle Bachmann declares that public schools should teach Intelligent Design (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/17/bachmann-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/). While this may play well with the GOP base, I can't see this sort of position going down well in the general election. So perhaps a good tactical move, but a fatal strategy. Thoughts?
As if she had been reading this thread, Michelle Bachmann declares that public schools should teach Intelligent Design (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/17/bachmann-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/). While this may play well with the GOP base, I can't see this sort of position going down well in the general election. So perhaps a good tactical move, but a fatal strategy. Thoughts?
usual problem for the GOP nominee in the last few elections
they have to buddy up to the lunatic fringe of the republicans to get the nomination...and then spend the entire campaign for the presidency trying to politely backtrack.
Centurion1
06-19-2011, 03:40
intelligent design is not creationism. every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.
every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.
Not even slightly true, even by your own formulation. Some religious people believe in creationism, which you just declared to be completely separate and distinct from ID. Furthermore, I know many religious people who don't subscribe to the tenets of ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design). Furthermore, ID is generally accepted to be the next iteration of creationism, coming into being after creationism was defeated in the courts re: schools. So, to be honest, you packed a world of falsehoods and misleading ideas into two short sentences. I'm kinda impressed.
Centurion1
06-19-2011, 04:49
wait isn't intelligent design just the belief that God created the earth. And that like evolution and other scientific truths are very much true but that God was sort of the big spark behind it all and had a grand plan?
If that is what it is I find it hard for any person with religious convictions in the belief of a supreme being to not subscribe to it?
Strike For The South
06-19-2011, 04:52
intelligent design is not creationism. every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.
wait isn't intelligent design just the belief that God created the earth. And that like evolution and other scientific truths are very much true but that God was sort of the big spark behind it all and had a grand plan?
If that is what it is I find it hard for any person with religious convictions in the belief of a supreme being to not subscribe to it?
So you didn't know what it was but decided to make a blanket statment about it
Way to shoot from the hip
Okay, one quick answer and then I'm not going to talk about ID anymore, except as it relates to the thread topic. ID claims that certain organs and life forms are "irreducibly complex," meaning evolution as a mechanism could not have accounted for them. The eye is often used as an example. How did animals go from flat photosensors to liquid-filled orbs with focusing membranes and all of that? If couldn't possibly have evolved naturally. So it must have been ... wait for it ... designed.
There is no science to back this up, just faith. So as physicist Wolfgang Pauli once observed, it's not even wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
ID is generally seen as a continuation of creationism because it is rooted in faith, not observation or hypotheses or method or any of that socialist flim-flam.
Advocating the teaching of ID in public schools, therefore, is a pretty radical position to take, and one which I predict will not play well with the general public.
Banquo's Ghost
06-19-2011, 08:25
intelligent design is not creationism. every single person of religion believes in intelligent design.
I can assure you that this doesn't apply even within Christianity, let alone other religions.
Centurion1
06-19-2011, 14:46
Yeah I misunderstood. now I know better my apologies.
PanzerJaeger
06-27-2011, 10:24
An interesting piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576405763716608234.html) on Huntsman.
If there's a short version of Mr. Huntsman's core message, it is that America needs to start competing again, and aggressively, in the global marketplace. "We need to get back in the game," he says, citing the lapse of free-trade momentum as a primary failing of the Obama years. "If we don't do it, China will move ahead with free-trade agreements as they are in Latin America, built around procurement practices that benefit Chinese companies."
In step with the other candidates, Mr. Huntsman wants to downgrade our military commitment in Afghanistan, but here, too, the argument is linked to regaining the U.S.'s competitive edge:
"Now we have one out of every six defense department dollars going to Afghanistan. We've achieved much of what we set out to do. We've been able to rout the Taliban from power. We've been able to disrupt to a large extent al Qaeda. We've had free elections going back to 2004. And we still have 100,000 troops on the ground. The future well-being of the United States is likely not going to be fought on the prairies of Afghanistan. It's likely to be the result of our ability or inability to compete competitively across the Pacific against the rising giants."
He adds he is "not suggesting pulling out completely" but would "leave behind a very capable fighting force that is appropriately positioned given the asymmetric threat that we face—the intelligence-gathering capability, the special forces capability, the training of Afghan forces capability, and the ability to work with friends in the region who believe as we do that those who are coming after us, we should go after very aggressively."
He is preoccupied with Asia: "I've seen the rise of Asia as a business guy, I've seen it as a diplomat. I think every day how we're going to better position ourselves to compete in the next century with the likes of China and India."
I don't agree with every position he took as governor of Utah, but - like Pawlenty - this guy seems like an intelligent, reasonable, and competent leader with some interesting new ideas based on conservative principles, but with a forward-thinking outlook. He just officially announced a week or so ago, although you'd be forgiven for missing it in all the excitement over Bachmann.
The more I've read about her, the more I dislike. She seems like the personification of the angry, reactionary, bible-thumping, anti-intellectual arch-Conservative straw man the Left holds up to tear down. And yet, she's creating the most buzz among the grassroots, surging to within two points of Romney in the latest Iowa poll.
Could it be that I've unknowingly strayed from the Conservative base over these last few years? Every candidate that seems to have the makings of a strong challenger to Obama and a quality president seems to be trapped in the single digits or not even registering in polls (Johnson). Meanwhile, the focus seems to be shifting from one poor quality candidate to another, Palin->Gingrich->Cain->Bachmann. The question is: is this a case of the JournoList types trying to pick the best candidate for Obama to face while most conservatives aren't paying attention or is this a genuine reflection of the movement today? We'll see, I guess.
Huntsman seems alot like McCain 2.0 to me. Other than his "let's all hug" announcement speech, what does he offer that others haven't been doing better already?
Also "Palin->Gingrich->Cain->Bachmann"? Gingrich's run never had any enthusiasm in polling.
Holey moley, Panzer has done it! Written a post I entirely agree with!* You must be straying from the base!
The more I've read about her, the more I dislike. She seems like the personification of the angry, reactionary, bible-thumping, anti-intellectual arch-Conservative straw man the Left holds up to tear down. And yet, she's creating the most buzz among the grassroots, surging to within two points of Romney in the latest Iowa poll.
Surely this is a contradiction in terms? If she's getting the most buzz, she can't be a strawman.
Regarding Huntsman, it's important to remember that the GOP leadership take it in turns. Huntsman is busy getting the recognition for 2016.
*And yes, I know you've written posts I agree with before, but I like to savour the moment.
For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622). Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.
For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622). Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.
wow....that is one scathing piece....and if in fact the Bachmann camp ain´t taking him to court that speaks volumes
For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622). Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.
Mhm, I read that the other day. Cracking article.
For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622). Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.I made it thru about 5 paragraphs full of unsubstantiated insults and smears then gave up. Remember, public officials have much higher standards when it comes to libel. I don't think we want to set the precedent that not responding to every scurrilous attack is an admission of its validity.
I'm not saying there's not merit in any of the shotgun blast of attacks the article levels, but I just can't take it seriously enough to look for them. Wanna give us a cliff notes version? I can't read that much venom without having at least some substance to it....
She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo. You will want to laugh, but don't, because the secret of Bachmann's success is that every time you laugh at her, she gets stronger.Seriously?
Wanna give us a cliff notes version? I can't read that much venom without having at least some substance to it...
She graduated from what eventually became Regent School of Law. She excels at using attacks against the crazy stuff she says to garner sympathy votes from the fundamentalists. She hasn't actually done anything politically, aside from getting elected. That's about it.
Ironside
06-27-2011, 21:51
She graduated from what eventually became Regent School of Law. She excels at using attacks against the crazy stuff she says to garner sympathy votes from the fundamentalists. She hasn't actually done anything politically, aside from getting elected. That's about it.
How is the "chosen path by God through visions" rethoric treated in the US? It's loony house warning here.
Tellos Athenaios
06-28-2011, 00:21
I made it thru about 5 paragraphs full of unsubstantiated insults and smears then gave up.
Not quite the same article I read. It is scathing, but it does substantiate its actual criticisms of Bachmann the main one is that she appears to be a compulsory liar. What I found particularly striking, though is this piece. It's not so much a commentary on Bachmann per se, but rather about why she gets people to vote for her:
Emboldened by the lack of consequences for her early freakouts, Bachmann's self-mythologizing became more and more overt. In October 2006, she stepped before a packed house at the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, and told her life story. All of history's great madmen have had that one gorgeous moment where the cackling hairy hunchback that has been gestating within for years finally comes out and shows itself, strutting up and down the catwalk for the world to see. This was Michele's catwalk moment, a lengthy autobiographical speech in which she claimed "callings" from God had pushed her to every major decision in her life — from studying tax law to running for Congress. She even told the congregation that she and hubby Marcus — who by then had opened a Christian counseling center — had been united not by love but by a unique series of divine visions experienced by three people simultaneously.
Bachmann claimed that back in her college days, she was up one night praying with a female friend of hers when "the Lord gave each one of us the same, exact vision... It was a picture of me, marrying this man, in the valley where his parents have a farm in western Wisconsin." Meanwhile, miles away, Marcus "was repairing a fence on the farm where he worked, and the Lord showed him in a vision that he was supposed to marry me." According to Bachmann, Marcus initially complained to God that he wanted to see the world first, and only later relented.
Snickering readers in New York or Los Angeles might be tempted by all of this to conclude that Bachmann is uniquely crazy. But in fact, such tales by Bachmann work precisely because there are a great many people in America just like Bachmann, people who believe that God tells them what condiments to put on their hamburgers, who can't tell the difference between Soviet Communism and a Stafford loan, but can certainly tell the difference between being mocked and being taken seriously. When you laugh at Michele Bachmann for going on MSNBC and blurting out that the moon is made of red communist cheese, these people don't learn that she is wrong. What they learn is that you're a :daisy:, that they hate you more than ever, and that they're even more determined now to support anyone who promises not to laugh at their own visions and fantasies.
(...)
All of those people out there aren't voting for Michele Bachmann. They're voting against us. And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender.
And that might actually have some truth to it.
Strike For The South
06-28-2011, 04:43
For anyone curious about Bachmann, Matt Tabibi did a serious hit piece on her in RS (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622). Harsh stuff, but well-sourced, and nobody has challenged his reporting as counter-factual. And lord knows he gives enough specifics that if he were wrong there would be lawsuits a-flying.
Damn, that was rough
But I would still hit it
PanzerJaeger
06-28-2011, 06:13
Huntsman seems alot like McCain 2.0 to me. Other than his "let's all hug" announcement speech, what does he offer that others haven't been doing better already?
Which others?
As governors run primarily on their states, I would argue that Utah's model is far better than Romney's Massachusetts and even Pawlenty's Minnesota or Johnson's New Mexico. Based in part on specific policies Huntsman enacted, Utah weathered the recession far better than those other states and the nation at large, and he would be able to effectively contrast his record in Utah with Obama's handling of the national economy.
Huntsman also brings foreign policy credentials to the table that none of the other candidates can match. He has literally been focused on China for most of his life, the nation that just happens to be our greatest competitor. I mean, the man can speak mandarin. Such a resume would prove invaluable in the coming years as we try and untangle the unsustainable trade relationship we have with that country.
All that being said, just like with Pawlenty, I haven't thrown my support behind Huntsman or any of the candidates yet. My frustration comes from the base's seeming obsession with crappy, second-tier candidates when there are so many quality governors out there who didn't mandate universal healthcare.
I mean, what do Palin, Cain, or Bachmann have to offer compared to these other guys? Ideological purity, or the illusion of it? (Bachmann isn't even all that much of a small government conservative if you examine her record). That's great in congress, but a president has to have broader appeal. That doesn't mean we (the Right) have to lay aside our core principles to get someone elected, but we also shouldn't write off quality candidates because they have adopted some moderate positions that have little to do with their ability to competently manage a government according to conservative principles.
By doing that, we are going to end up with a choice between a truly principle-less candidate and a bat shit crazy one.
Also "Palin->Gingrich->Cain->Bachmann"? Gingrich's run never had any enthusiasm in polling.
I thought he enjoyed high numbers before his comments on Ryan's Medicare plan. Wasn't he the 'ideas guy' of the Republican party?
a completely inoffensive name
06-28-2011, 06:23
I'm sorry Panzer, but this is what I have talked about a few times. There really are no "conservative" leaders in the Republican party. They throw a couple of good candidates your way, but then heavily marginalize them (lol Ron Paul gets this the worst) to keep you voting for them, in hopes that next time one of them will win. The frontrunners are all ideologically crazy or hacks that completely abuse the rhetoric of conservatism's classical origins and don't adhere to it in any way and instead follow an authoritarian, religious based doctrine which is what the base is.
You don't have a party PJ. Just look at the difference between Barry Goldwater and Michell Bachmann. They are worlds apart, and you will not be finding your next great conservative leader until you kick out the religious.
The Rolling Stone smear job Lemur posted got me curious, and I found a slightly less unhinged critique of Bachmann (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html).
I think the big question mark for her is how deep her anti-gay attitudes run. Think the homosexual act is morally wrong? No real argument here. Don't approve of gay marriage? Ok by me. But she really seems to delving into anti-gay obsession and zealotry. She seems to have a track record of strange behavior and freak outs when confronted with homosexuals. This should be something to give people pause.
PanzerJaeger
06-28-2011, 22:55
I had to look for the pictures. :grin:
http://www.minnpost.com/_asset/vqdl3u/mp_main_wide/BachmannRally452.jpg
Centurion1
06-29-2011, 03:46
ugh the gay thing again. Once again I do not care a whit. I hate the issue and I hate attention given to it. Give them their rights and lets all focus on more pressing concerns.
I for one am heartily depressed by the field of candidates available. I want Bobby Jindall to run but that probably will never happen.
Bachmann- annoying media grabbing loon
Cain- loon, media grabber, no shot in hell has no idea what he is doing
Huntsman- too moderate on certain issues for me also too religious
Pawlenty- he is okay not really sure how i feel....
Whenever i am going down the list i am stuck with romney. Well at least he looks presidential......
Also PJ if i may point out..... Utah is a conservative dominated state unlike the failure that is Mass. or the union dominated Minn. does it really surprise you they weathered the economic storm better :wink:
The Rolling Stone smear job Lemur posted got me curious, and I found a slightly less unhinged critique of Bachmann (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html).
I think the big question mark for her is how deep her anti-gay attitudes run. Think the homosexual act is morally wrong? No real argument here. Don't approve of gay marriage? Ok by me. But she really seems to delving into anti-gay obsession and zealotry. She seems to have a track record of strange behavior and freak outs when confronted with homosexuals. This should be something to give people pause.
I did a quick read of the 2nd text....at least at first read I find no factual differences between the 2 pieces....except for the fact that the RS article is longer and goes more in dept.
As for the second part....obviously having someone that shows such unstable and delusional behavior in a position of power is not a good idea at all...
In the meantime, Bachmann is facing resistance from music artists that do not wish to be associated with her particular flavor of lunacy.
Tom Petty, Katrina and the waves issue cease and desist to Bachmann (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/katrina-and-the-waves-join-tom-pettys-fight-against-michele-bachmann-20110629)
Looks like the candidate will have to pick some new song to play during her rallies....suggestions?
I´d suggest 'American Jesus' by Bad Religion.
Kralizec
06-30-2011, 11:08
Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode.
I think Romney's latest ad is pretty darn good. Attacking Obama over economics = smart. Calling him out as a Kenyan alien = dumb. Glad to see the current GOP frontrunner is smart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-44o5Dn6V98
Personal Jesus by Depeche Mode.
:laugh4:
When a politico blasts music at events, does ASCAP get involved?
When a politico blasts music at events, does ASCAP get involved?
Don't know if it's a settled matter of IP law, but many musicians have filed cease-and-desist letters when politicos used their songs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/campaigns-adopting-songs-is-nothing-new-but-squabbles-with-musicians-are/2011/06/29/AGKpKIrH_story.html). Given that artists tend to be flaming liberals, we may see the entire GOP field scouring the publishing rights of Ted Nugent before this season's out.
Centurion1
07-01-2011, 05:37
use a dead artist duh!
PanzerJaeger
07-01-2011, 14:56
Also PJ if i may point out..... Utah is a conservative dominated state unlike the failure that is Mass. or the union dominated Minn. does it really surprise you they weathered the economic storm better :wink:
Of course not. That's what makes it such a great contrast to the more liberal economic policy Obama endorses. ~:)
Tellos Athenaios
07-01-2011, 15:38
use a dead artist duh!
That depends. Most songs you would think of using will be under IP until roughly the second half of this century. So if you absolutely want to avoid stepping on someone's IP you can't use anything written since about 1900 or so. (The reason is that audio works fall under a rather different protection regime from others under US copyright law in any case.)
Centurion1
07-01-2011, 17:23
oh no i realize that but you can pay the record company for rights and those companies are either going to be more conservative (maybe not) or much more greedy and much more willing to take money for the rights
Pure horse-race reporting (http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2011-07-02-2529904896_x.htm), but interesting nevertheless:
Bolstered by support from his loyal radio talk-show audience and tea party backers, businessman Herman Cain has revved up mainstream conservatives, rising recently to third place in a poll of voters in Iowa, the leadoff caucus state. [...] Cain has been on a remarkable trajectory since entering the race more than a month ago, when a crowd of 15,000 stormed a downtown Atlanta park to cheer him on at his campaign announcement. He was received well at the Republican Leadership Conference this month in New Orleans and drew nearly 100 in Greenville, S.C., for a discussion of his economic plan.
His narrative -- outlined in a patriotic, four-minute video that winds across rolling hills and pastures and ends in a boardroom against the backdrop of the American flag -- is that of a no-excuses, no-nonsense fighter who isn't afraid of a challenge. On the stump, he offers simplified stances on complex issues like national defense, the federal income tax and why he thinks America should return to the gold standard. He has been compared to Republican heroes like Ronald Reagan.
"He's fresh, he's outspoken," said Debbie Dooley, head of the Georgia Tea Party Patriots. "If they hear him speak, he usually wins them over. With him, what you see is what you get. People like that."
Centurion1
07-02-2011, 19:12
I do not like cain. He is a superb businessman but knows nothing about politics or foreign affairs. He is more untested than Barack Obama was. I think he draws attention away from more legitimate candidates.
ICantSpellDawg
07-02-2011, 20:40
Romney
a completely inoffensive name
07-02-2011, 20:42
Christ, Obama's economic policies are liberal now? Now we really have deluded ourselves.
Since he's the frontrunner, and nobody is yet denting him in the polls, let us consider Romney. Here's a pretty good analysis of his weaknesses as a candidate (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/07/romney_strikes_a_blow_against_romney_110480.html). Are any Orgahs excited about him? I know a few of our conservative Orgahs are against him, curious to hear if someone is for.
But when Romney was asked last week about the accuracy of his contention that Obama worsened the recession, he did not claim to be invoking a truth that trumps mere facts. Instead, he denied making such an assertion. "I didn't say that things are worse," he insisted. "What I said was that the economy hasn't turned around."
The denial makes him look confused and dishonest. A campaign spokesman did Romney no favor by saying (in an e-mail to me) his comment "was in response to part of the reporter's question about the stock market" -- which it obviously wasn't, and which compounded one risible deception with another. Nor did it help when, a few days later, Romney went back to saying Obama "made things worse."
This incident is not just an isolated flub. It's a reminder of Romney's chief flaws as a candidate. One is his habit of eagerly changing any position whenever he can gain by it. Another is his tendency to deny having done so.
Strike For The South
07-07-2011, 21:01
A straight laced white guy who lies
WILD CARD
ajaxfetish
07-08-2011, 00:33
I think he'd probably make an efficient administrator, which I'd see as a good thing, and I appreciate his more moderate positions compared to some GOP candidates. On a personal level, unrelated to his suitability, it'd feel nice to have had a Mormon president at some point in US history. I can't get too excited about Romney, though, since Huntsman shares all his positive features, and seems to me to have more integrity on top of it. On the other hand, Romney certainly seems more electable at this point, with all the not-attention Huntsman's been able to attract so far.
Ajax
A straight laced white guy who lies
Not entirely fair. Given that politicians are in the business of (a) telling the majority what they want to hear and (b) governing, and given that (a) and (b) often do not match up, it's inevitable that they lie. I think the ding on Romney is that he does not lie well.
PanzerJaeger
07-08-2011, 00:50
Since he's the frontrunner, and nobody is yet denting him in the polls, let us consider Romney.
In Iowa, Bachmann is at 22% to Romney's 23% in the latest polling (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/25/iowa-poll-romney-bachmann-in-lead-cain-third-others-find-little-traction/). To that end, the only thing that could get me excited about Romney is the real possibility of a Bachmann candidacy.
Not that it matters though, I live in a Super Tuesday state, so the GOP candidate will likely be decided before I have a chance to weigh in.
Bachmann signs pledge to anti-gay organization - promises to ban all pornography. (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/07/update-bachmann-is-first-to-sign-family-leaders-pro-marriage-pledge/)
ya done ****** up lady....you just became unelectable. :laugh4:
No porn? For anyone anywhere? This just got personal. You can have my smutty Victorian novels (http://www.amazon.com/Masterpieces-Victorian-Erotica-Major-LaCaritilie/dp/0977431169/) when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.
PanzerJaeger
07-08-2011, 17:43
More (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730) good news for Romney and bad news for the American people in today's jobs report.
U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.
Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.
The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.
"The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. "Income growth is marginal so there's no indication of momentum.
The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.
More good news for Romney and bad news for the American people in today's jobs report.
Heard about it on the radio. Seems that the low number is almost entirely due to a reduction in state and federal payrolls. So ... hmmm. For people intent on deficit reduction, good news. But the number illustrates why going gonzo on deficit reduction in the early days of a recovery is an iffy idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVo_-RAiX3M
this could be the best unintentional comedy since Grizzly Man....
Don Corleone
07-09-2011, 03:45
While I agree that is has to be balanced with spending cuts, I don't see how we can save our bond rating (which will cause our problems to exponentially worsen) without balancing the budget which means raising taxes too.
We are in the final countdown days here. My kids are going to wind up debtors for life, paying off services and programs they never saw...
I may be wrong on this, but all the GOP candidates believe shrinking government, no tax raises, spending cuts only is the only means for shrinking (not ending) the defecit. In short, none of them believe in balancing the budget. Neither does Obama FWIW, he's talking about raising spending faster.
Looks like I'll be sitting 2012 out, looking for a 3rd party candidate that doesn't want to see our children live their lives as identured servants....
Centurion1
07-09-2011, 04:22
sitting out helps nobody.
the best process would be to raise taxes and cut spending.
however, i believe that cutting spending is mor eimportant that raising taxes and has to come first.
Don Corleone
07-09-2011, 04:39
They have to happen concurrently or they won't happen at all.
I am getting a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that Republicans and Democrats care more about election politics than the debt, and that we are going to wind up defaulting. God help us all when that happens.
Centurion1
07-09-2011, 04:52
They have to happen concurrently or they won't happen at all.
I am getting a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that Republicans and Democrats care more about election politics than the debt, and that we are going to wind up defaulting. God help us all when that happens.
whys the reason that politicians are afraid of reforming social security? because seniors are a sizable voting bloc and aarp is the most powerful special interest group in the nation. Its not a feeling in your gut its cold hard facts.
and it disgusts me.
Strike For The South
07-09-2011, 05:35
No way we end up defaulting
The Sicilian pessimism is coming out worse than usual today Don ~:)
Ironside
07-09-2011, 09:56
Bachmann signs pledge to anti-gay organization - promises to ban all pornography. (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/07/update-bachmann-is-first-to-sign-family-leaders-pro-marriage-pledge/)
ya done ****** up lady....you just became unelectable. :laugh4:
It's a quite odd pledge (http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf). It's against gays, anti-women's rights and it's authorian (mostly indirectly). Yet it opposes Sharia laws specifically on the same basis.
It implies that slavery had lesser effect than single parenting.
I wonder how long it will take until we get the first wife cheater that signed it.
Strike For The South
07-09-2011, 10:00
It's a quite odd pledge (http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf). It's against gays, anti-women's rights and it's authorian (mostly indirectly). Yet it opposes Sharia laws specifically on the same basis.
It implies that slavery had lesser effect than single parenting.
I wonder how long it will take until we get the first wife cheater that signed it.
It opposes Shairia b/c thats the wrong God
To brown for there taste
Ironside
07-09-2011, 10:28
It opposes Shairia b/c thats the wrong God
To brown for there taste
True, but usually you don't leave behind the stuff were you and them think simular. It leaves bad connections.
Crazed Rabbit
07-10-2011, 05:32
Gary Johnson, an actual small government republican who doesn't want to get all up in your business; (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-calls-family-leader-pledge-offensive-and-unrepublican)
July 9, 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada – Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged today in a formal statement through his campaign that the Family Leader “pledge” Republican candidates for President are being asked to sign is “offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded”. Governor Johnson also plans to further state his position against the Family Leader pledge this afternoon in Las Vegas, NV at a speech he will deliver at the Conservative Leadership Conference.
Johnson went on to state that “the so-called ‘Marriage Vow” pledge that FAMILY LEADER is asking Republican candidates for President to sign attacks minority segments of our population and attempts to prevent and eliminate personal freedom. This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name.
“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.
“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.
While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.
I was just about to come post that.
wow..a republican with an actual balanced non religious based position on social matters.
sounds like a good candidate to me....meaning he's screwed in the GOP primaries.
Kralizec
07-13-2011, 14:38
Gary Johnson seems like a decent pick to me.
Especially because his name reminds me of Team America: World Police :thumbsup:
Well I'm gonna march on Washington
Lead the fight and charge the brigades
There's a hero inside of all of us
I'll make them see everyone has AIDS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szE_qmzavQ
Gary Johnson, an actual small government republican who doesn't want to get all up in your business; (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-calls-family-leader-pledge-offensive-and-unrepublican)It's a shame that most people don't know he's running or who he even is. :no:
a completely inoffensive name
07-13-2011, 20:47
In this day and age, the US is too big to fail. Chinese still need us to buy stuff, so they won't be unleashing the debt hammer on us if we don't raise the limit.
I think I finally understand why Rep. Bachmann is so obsessed with gays and gayness. Apparently her husband runs a "gay cure" program, and we all know what that means (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/07/14/marcus-bachmanns-big-problem).
Strike For The South
07-15-2011, 18:09
ahem
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?136691-Every-Once-In-A-While-Politics-Gives-Me-A-Reason-For-Hope
Centurion1
07-15-2011, 18:22
I think I finally understand why Rep. Bachmann is so obsessed with gays and gayness. Apparently her husband runs a "gay cure" program, and we all know what that means (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/07/14/marcus-bachmanns-big-problem).
Late to the party there my dear lemur.
Edit: Also ACIN that is flawed thinking. Simply because one is too big too fail doesn't mean it cannot fail or will not in the future. I am sure the British Empire thought it was too big too fail as well. Along with the Romans, Ming, and basically any large social grouping of people in history.
Kralizec
07-15-2011, 18:25
I think I finally understand why Rep. Bachmann is so obsessed with gays and gayness. Apparently her husband runs a "gay cure" program, and we all know what that means (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/07/14/marcus-bachmanns-big-problem).
That doesn't really explain the obsession - it's merely another illustration of the Bachmann's obsession.
I didn't know that The Stranger had his own site.
EDIT: only just read the article, I see what you mean now.
Strike For The South
07-15-2011, 18:30
Late to the party there my dear lemur.
Edit: Also ACIN that is flawed thinking. Simply because one is too big too fail doesn't mean it cannot fail or will not in the future. I am sure the British Empire thought it was too big too fail as well. Along with the Romans, Ming, and basically any large social grouping of people in history.
And to try and make any claim btwn a post industrial USA and the Romans or the Mings is equally as futile.
Centurion1
07-15-2011, 18:46
please spell out between it took me like 5 minutes to understand that little gem.
Yeah I know the comparison fails on different levels. But the simple point is simply because you do not think that something can fail doesn't mean that it won't or cannot. A fact everyone knows but refuses to acknowledge
Strike For The South
07-15-2011, 18:50
Your lack of abbreviation comprehension is not my problem
Yeah I know the comparison fails on different levels. But the simple point is simply because you do not think that something can fail doesn't mean that it won't or cannot. A fact everyone knows but refuses to acknowledge
But you still trotted out the Roman empire line. That was your #1 defense
That doesn't really explain the obsession - it's merely another illustration of the Bachmann's obsession.
that guy is so deep in the closet he's in narnia.
Centurion1
07-15-2011, 22:01
Your lack of abbreviation comprehension is not my problem
But you still trotted out the Roman empire line. That was your #1 defense
i dnt knw y u insist tht it was a defnse it was smply an anecdote of people in positions of glbal pwr nt being able to comprehend tht they to could fall. tht is a fair comparison.
every single time that a reference between america and the roman empire is trotted out doesn't mean it is used in the same way. there is more than one line to that reference. In my case, the statement that simply because you are arrogant to believe your group is too powerful to be vanquished does not preclude you from being overtaken is perfectly applicable.
Centurion1
07-15-2011, 22:02
that guy is so deep in the closet he's in narnia.
this deserves recognition as a great line.
that guy is so deep in the closet he's in narnia.
So "turkish delight" was just a slightly veiled euphemism? Lewis was more risque than I thought. ~;)
Given that all this homophobia will look mighty awkward in 15 years or so, is it too soon to start printing "Meghan McCain 2024" stickers?
a completely inoffensive name
07-20-2011, 07:19
Edit: Also ACIN that is flawed thinking. Simply because one is too big too fail doesn't mean it cannot fail or will not in the future. I am sure the British Empire thought it was too big too fail as well. Along with the Romans, Ming, and basically any large social grouping of people in history.
It's why I said, "In this day and age". If circumstances were different you would be right in bringing up that point. But the fact is that your point you make is for all intents and purposes moot due to the economic reliance that the world, especially China, has on the US economy. Which makes it almost guaranteed that world leaders from the West and East will pull every trick in the book to prevent the US from tanking.
PanzerJaeger
07-20-2011, 07:31
Somewhat NSFW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HV5CY-pJmPk
Somewhat NSFW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HV5CY-pJmPk
last week's episode was great....that's a good panel right there....Marc Maron always can improve a discussion :P
and watching Fox News going into a frenzy over this was double the fun.
and btw...I came up with another doubt.....if..and it's a big IF..Bachmann could get elected.....wouldn´t that mean there would be a Queen in the white house?
is that ok from the perspective of the constitution?? :P
Also from the same show episode...
to quote an older joke by Maher "it's not sexist just to say something negative about a woman....and we're gonna do that now"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkKS5RrePyg
and btw I think the phrase "A bully who sells patriotism like a pimp" is a very apt description for the posture some sectors of the American right wing seem to have taken as a strategy in the last decade or so.......the speed with which one goes from simply disagreeing on a policy issue to being labeled "un-american" in your guys political discourse is impressive and scary.
your guys political discourse is impressive and scary.
I am aware that our Republicans look unhinged overseas. I've heard it over and over again from people I know in other countries. But here's the thing — it is unfair and unhelpful to write them off as insane. Republicans have evolved the strategies and methods that they use now over decades. They use them because they work, for the most part, not because an entire political party has fallen ill with paranoid schizophrenia.
A lot of it is gamesmanship. Do leading republicans really think that every American who disagrees with their policies is disloyal (http://minnesotaindependent.com/13637/new-mccarthyism-bachmann-calls-for-investigation-of-anti-american-congress-members), deluded and a potential traitor? No, of course not, but eliding and hinting at that sort of eliminationist rhetoric works. Did leading republicans really think Bill Clinton was a murderer (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp) and an illegitimate president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton)? Nope, but it whipped the base up nicely. Do leading republicans really think Obama is a foreign-born (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40644.html) Kenyan muslin (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-islam-and.html)? Nope. But hinting at it stirred things up. Do they really think he's a socialist (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/38844/)? Of course not. But hurling the "s" word around has done wonders to re-frame arguments in their favor.
The problem, which republican leadership is now confronting with the debt ceiling crisis (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/07/20/2011-07-20_debt_ceiling_stalemate_is_tea_partys_fault_gop_base_refuses_to_compromise.html), is that their base is not in on the joke (http://city-journal.com/2011/eon0715ng.html). A measurable percentage (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/03/24/party-of-nuts-poll-shows-gop-thinks-obama-is-muslim-socialist) of their supporters really believe all of those things, and don't get that it's posturing and gamesmanship. And some of the new "tea party" congresscritters don't get the joke either, and don't understand that after calling your opponent the Spawn of Satan you need to put that aside and negotiate. (Exemplum gratum: The relentless gay-baiting and gay-bashing of the early 2000s. And yet, while this was going on, many of the top staffers on the red side of the hill were homosexuals, and gays were welcomed and employed by the White House. So clearly the top republicans were tolerant, intelligent people who felt it necessary to wave the red flag of gay-baiting to win elections. President Bush and his cabinet were almost entirely closeted tolerants.)
Anyway. I just get worried when Europeans and Asians make comments or ask questions about republicans being insane. They are not, and never have been. Rather, they have been employing eliminationist and deligitimist rhetoric for decades, and it appears to be biting them on their posterior — Bachmann, for example, does not get the joke. She appears to honestly believe in a gay conspiracy to undermine America. She appears to truly believe that Obama is a socialist who wants us all to live in labor camps. All of that nutty has lodged in her brain, and her irony filter was set to "off." Panzer is quite right, she will be a disaster of epic proportions if she gains the nomination.
Strike For The South
07-20-2011, 15:53
This just keeps getting better
“When she gets ‘em, frankly, she can’t function at all. It’s not like a little thing with a couple Advils. It’s bad,” the adviser says. “The migraines are so bad and so intense, she carries and takes all sorts of pills. Prevention pills. Pills during the migraine. Pills after the migraine, to keep them under control. She has to take these pills wherever she goes.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/#ixzz1Sep7bKos
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/
Tellos Athenaios
07-20-2011, 16:08
@Lemur sounds all plausible, even reasonable. However I think there is more to the question of Asians/Europeans/Anyone of “are you guys insane?” than a serious worry about the sanity of the American electorate. It is pure and simple disgust.
It doesn't do you any favours if the leading political figures are not merely dishonest or incompetent but also employ rhetoric so toxic that the English and German waste left in Belgium in the early 20th century seems good for your health by comparison.
Strike For The South
07-20-2011, 16:10
Meh, I look at the Europe handles some things and think you people are insane
Don't worry there's enough indignation to go around
Tellos Athenaios
07-20-2011, 16:16
Meh, I look at the Europe handles some things and think you people are insane
Don't worry there's enough indignation to go around
Not indignation. It's more like a very bad horror movie. Comic because of how unhinged and distasteful it is, yet at the same time this one is real which makes it somewhat horrifying at the same time.
Strike For The South
07-20-2011, 16:34
Not indignation. It's more like a very bad horror movie. Comic because of how unhinged and distasteful it is, yet at the same time this one is real which makes it somewhat horrifying at the same time.
Where do you live?
I only ask to know which mountain of videos I need to pull out
I am aware that our Republicans look unhinged overseas. I've heard it over and over again from people I know in other countries. But here's the thing — it is unfair and unhelpful to write them off as insane. Republicans have evolved the strategies and methods that they use now over decades. They use them because they work, for the most part, not because an entire political party has fallen ill with paranoid schizophrenia.
I fully understand that it is rhetoric being used as a weapon basically.
but like you stated...the use of this level of rhetoric has serious and real results......what I find surprising is that they are willing to roll those dice.
and the tea party might be in part the result of all that rhetoric coming home to roost, I look at the majority of the republican party and understand it is rhetoric...crazy rhetoric but just spin nonetheless.....with some of the tea party people I´m starting to question if they truly believe what they are saying in some cases.
This just keeps getting better
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/#ixzz1Sep7bKos
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/
Those aren't migraines. That's just God speaking to her. :yes:
Centurion1
07-20-2011, 20:24
European and Asians have plenty of their own loon politics that disgust me and leave me incredulous. Your post was insulting Lemur. Speak for yourself and do not try to lump us all together. I do not give a damn what the rest of the world looks at my politics because I only have to look at theirs. Like Strike says which pile of videos do you want me to unearth first.
Your post was insulting Lemur. Speak for yourself and do not try to lump us all together.
Sorry you feel insulted; it's hard to talk about large groups of people and decades-long trends without making gross generalizations, but I tried to be as careful and specific as possible. As for limiting myself to talking about myself, I like ice cream and long walks.
Centurion1
07-20-2011, 20:57
what flavor?
Samurai Waki
07-20-2011, 21:06
Ack. I'm beginning to hate the word politics, as more often than not it's a liars game.
Tellos Athenaios
07-20-2011, 21:34
European and Asians have plenty of their own loon politics that disgust me and leave me incredulous. Your post was insulting Lemur. Speak for yourself and do not try to lump us all together. I do not give a damn what the rest of the world looks at my politics because I only have to look at theirs. Like Strike says which pile of videos do you want me to unearth first.
When did you ever hear us say that ours are anything to write home about...?
Adrian II
07-24-2011, 16:05
Well now that Huckabee and Trump have offically bowed out who is your money on?
I'm still betting on Justus Aardvark. I think he has shown a strong commitment, he has a good track record, he is fiscally sound and legally married to a woman of the female persuasion. Go Aardvark.
AII
ICantSpellDawg
07-24-2011, 16:26
Lemur, there is literally a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships as the natural order. It was under the table, and now it is an open conspiracy. Whether you agree with what they are doing or not, you can see that this is the objective and that some Democratic politicians have hidden their true agenda in order to be elected, right?
Lemur, there is literally a gay conspiracy
And it's faaaabulous!
to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships as the natural order.
Pshaw, this is meat for a whole 'nother thread. I'll just say that "natural order" is a phrase that needs to be chewed on for a while. Maybe recycle my line about how many gay men and women does the Lord God need to make for you to get his point.
ICantSpellDawg
07-24-2011, 17:15
Right, because everything that happens in the world is proof that God wants it that way. Or were you just being cheeky.
Why would anyone be surprised that people vote with their real or perceived interests? We aren't the only ones who play at "gamesmanship". I was attempting to illustrate how democratic politicians play lip service to things in order to get elected. We are playing in the same vacuum.
PanzerJaeger
07-24-2011, 21:15
Lemur, there is literally a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships as the natural order. It was under the table, and now it is an open conspiracy. Whether you agree with what they are doing or not, you can see that this is the objective and that some Democratic politicians have hidden their true agenda in order to be elected, right?
Links?
ICantSpellDawg
07-24-2011, 22:30
I literally heard on NPR this morning the precise and unwavering long term procedure for the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in American culture. First in popular culture as a hip thing, then in courts, then in showing homosexual relationships on TV, then in a slim majority legislation in big states blue, then in revocation of "dated" state and Federal impediments, Then in law, then in educational curriculum.
Does any of that sound un-realistic? We saw this coming in the 1990's, but most people couldn't fathom the idea of gays marrying or thinking that was appropriate, so it seemed harmless and sensible to revoke callous laws criminalizing that type of conduct. My Aunt, who is a lesbian, always said "a marriage is between a man and a woman" around that time. She doesn't say that anymore. None of what I just wrote is partisan. Was anyone else listening at 9:20-9:30 Am?
Edit*: either this (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138654069/same-sex-couples-exchange-vows-in-new-york) interview or this (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138653391/gay-marriage-opppnents-line-up-legal-challenges) interview from this morning. Probably the second (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138653391/gay-marriage-opppnents-line-up-legal-challenges). I mean, it is perfectly sensible if you buy into the agenda, I just hadn't heard them outline it like we've all (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-esNymyeiS1A/TY_xd6jLx7I/AAAAAAAABBI/QBhxOQeBMvE/s400/Hitler_20April1945.jpg) (I thought i'd save you the "edit") had it outlined before.
Centurion1
07-24-2011, 22:47
are you just like one giant troll wherever you tread; making us dance like puppets? Did you have too much natty light this morning before you went laxing with your strong island boys?
ICantSpellDawg
07-24-2011, 23:04
are you just like one giant troll wherever you tread; making us dance like puppets? Did you have too much natty light this morning before you went laxing with your strong island boys?
Ha! No, I just like irritating people on forums. I'm so polite and political all week that I just love to tear into people sometimes. I don't work where my interests lie, so I am forced to argue with people online - It gets my blood up. I do honestly think that the gay rights movement is crap, but people are entitled to the laws that they support - we don't live in a theocracy. I'm just interested in getting as many types of "marriages" on the books as possible, so the civil institution stops being a marriage and is just a contract. The gay marriage debate has taken me half the way there, I just read an article in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/marriage-and-liberty) suggesting that we lay off of attacking the polygamists for their lifestyle choices (arguably inherent nature), which is exiting. The faster we can demolish "marriage", the sooner marriage will be saved.
PanzerJaeger
07-25-2011, 03:20
I literally heard on NPR this morning the precise and unwavering long term procedure for the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in American culture. First in popular culture as a hip thing, then in courts, then in showing homosexual relationships on TV, then in a slim majority legislation in big states blue, then in revocation of "dated" state and Federal impediments, Then in law, then in educational curriculum.
It doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy if they're discussing it on NPR, does it?
Edit*: either this (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138654069/same-sex-couples-exchange-vows-in-new-york) interview or this (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138653391/gay-marriage-opppnents-line-up-legal-challenges) interview from this morning. Probably the second (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138653391/gay-marriage-opppnents-line-up-legal-challenges). I mean, it is perfectly sensible if you buy into the agenda, I just hadn't heard them outline it like we've all (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-esNymyeiS1A/TY_xd6jLx7I/AAAAAAAABBI/QBhxOQeBMvE/s400/Hitler_20April1945.jpg) (I thought i'd save you the "edit") had it outlined before.
And, of course, there was no conspiracy discussed. None of what you above referenced was highlighted in either of the pieces you linked to.
The first one was about the first gay wedding, a pastor who is pleased that the NY law didn't force him to marry gay people, and the wedding business at Niagra Falls. The second was about the changing attitudes about gay marriage and how that will play out in the political/legal systems.
There was nothing about a subversive gay conspiracy to normalize gay relationships. And why would there be? It's happening on its own. As more and more (primarily young) gay people come out, more and more (primarily young) straight people see that they are, in fact, normal people deserving normal treatment.
Also, I'm not sure what the Hitler picture has to do with anything. The sentence it is used in makes no sense.
Again, links?
ICantSpellDawg
07-25-2011, 04:14
The strategy I've outlined is pretty basic stuff and the political interview sums it up. Most people recognize that homosexuality has historically been viewed as abominable and that peoples attitudes are changing. If you think that it is just natural progression, I would disagree, I believe that there is a concerted effort to normalize homosexuality in our society. I'm not sure whether you are arguing with my perspective on the issue itself, or whether you don't believe that the gay rights interest groups have cleverly and successfully sold their issue to the masses in short order.
I think that most things happen in a short period of time through PR campaigns.
Within the next 5 years DOMA will be repealed, gay marriage will be allowed on a Federal level and same sex partners will be eligible for Federal benefits. I just hope that polygamists, family members and best friends are eligible in 10 years for the same benefits. I will get on that bus, because I believe that the civil institution has become a contract, and it is better a simple contract than an institution with a warped meaning that we all have to condone. Face it, we no longer agree on what marriage is as a society, so let's get rid of all the bells and whistles as a society.
PanzerJaeger
07-25-2011, 04:34
The strategy I've outlined is pretty basic stuff and the political interview sums it up.
The interview does not at all sum up what you earlier claimed. :dizzy2:
Most people recognize that homosexuality has historically been viewed as abominable and that peoples attitudes are changing.
Most people have a very limited understanding of history. Those who look beyond a very specific period in European history would certainly take issue with that statement.
If you think that it is just natural progression, I would disagree, I believe that there is a concerted effort to normalize homosexuality in our society. I'm not sure whether you are arguing with my perspective on the issue itself, or whether you don't believe that the gay rights interest groups have cleverly and successfully sold their issue to the masses in short order.
I'm asking for some sourcing that 'there is literally a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships as the natural order'.
You seem to be arguing that gay people saying 'being gay is ok and here's why' constitutes some sort of conspiracy against heterosexual relationships.
Of course there are gay and straight people advocating for causes important to gay people, just like there are advocacy groups for all sorts of causes. That fact is not evidence of a) a conspiracy or b) an attack on heterosexual relationships.
Again, links or it isn't happening.
ICantSpellDawg
07-25-2011, 04:52
It is clearly happening. I have to post an exact outline of the "gay agenda"? That is not a reasonable request. Last week on nor they had an interview with a guy who wanted to replace schoolbook curiculum with the gay struggle. The interviewer made a good point; "if we add that and the school day is the same, what are we eliminating?" People are getting tax breaks for being in love. There will soon be nothing distinguishing heterosexual male female life partnerships from other relationships in law, both will get the benefits... but why do we have those benefits? Why are people being rewarded for getting married? Why does society celebrate that relationship 1 person with another person over other types of relationships? It is a pointless fight. They are making the civil institution of marriage into a bigger sham than it already was becoming on its own. When you say that there is nothing more special about 1 man and 1 woman than any other relationship, civil marriage is pointless.phone typing is a struggle
PanzerJaeger
07-25-2011, 06:37
It is clearly happening. I have to post an exact outline of the "gay agenda"? That is not a reasonable request.
If by 'it' you mean change in social attitudes towards gay people, yes it is clearly happening.
If by 'it' you mean the execution of a gay conspiracy to de-legitimize heterosexual relationships, then you'll need to provide some sort of evidence to support that claim as it is hardly 'clear' cut.
There is nothing unreasonable in my request. I can go to the HRC website or a hundred others and find the gay agenda - marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. It's all right there in the open, and none of it targets heterosexual relationships.
If, in your extensive research, you've unearthed a far more sinister conspiracy, then please share it with the group. :book:
Last week on nor they had an interview with a guy who wanted to replace schoolbook curiculum with the gay struggle. The interviewer made a good point; "if we add that and the school day is the same, what are we eliminating?"
This is more gross exaggeration on your part. Nobody wants to replace the schoolbook curriculum with the gay struggle.
Certain gay advocates want gay history included in the history curriculum (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/18/california-debates-place-of-gay-history-in-textbooks/). The movement is a response to the recent spate of gay youth being bullied into suicide. The theory is that if young gay people are able to read about important gay historical figures that had a significant positive impact on society, they will be less effected by people who would call them abominable and their relationships shams.
Obviously, it is a highly flawed idea. When there is a limited amount of time and space in which to teach history, what is chosen should be based on historical significance and not mandated based religious, racial, or sexual quotas. A more appropriate response to bullies is a zero-tolerance policy.
Is it proof of a gay conspiracy, though, or simply a reflection of the pluralistic democracy we live in? Was it a conspiracy when black, Native American, Christian, asian, and the myriad of other groups lobbied for the same type of inclusion?
People are getting tax breaks for being in love. There will soon be nothing distinguishing heterosexual male female life partnerships from other relationships in law, both will get the benefits... but why do we have those benefits? Why are people being rewarded for getting married? Why does society celebrate that relationship 1 person with another person over other types of relationships? It is a pointless fight.
I believe the initial rationale for the tax incentivization of one man-one woman marriage was to promote a socially beneficial atmosphere for procreation and inheritance. Even if we discount the changing attitudes towards the meaning of marriage, the fact that gay couples are now capable of having children in several different ways renders that original scheme somewhat obsolete and makes it obvious that they should be included in civil marriage.
They are making the civil institution of marriage into a bigger sham than it already was becoming on its own. When you say that there is nothing more special about 1 man and 1 woman than any other relationship, civil marriage is pointless.
How is it a sham? What makes the one man-one woman relationship special?
phone typing is a struggle
I'm surprised you managed that much. Trying to respond to posts on my Android device is far more trouble than it is worth.
Strike For The South
07-25-2011, 07:17
People who are trying to take over the world:
Jews
Muslims
Gays
Yet, Coropartions can now donate infinty money to campagins and the tax rate on the top 1% is the lowest it's been since WWII
Nary a peep?
Centurion1
07-25-2011, 08:05
People who are trying to take over the world:
Jews
Muslims
Gays
Yet, Coropartions can now donate infinty money to campagins and the tax rate on the top 1% is the lowest it's been since WWII
Nary a peep?
Corporations are on that list when most people compose it though most crazies would say that jews are out of fashion and gays simply want to destroy us not control us.
Major Robert Dump
07-25-2011, 10:59
It is clearly happening. I have to post an exact outline of the "gay agenda"? That is not a reasonable request. Last week on nor they had an interview with a guy who wanted to replace schoolbook curiculum with the gay struggle. The interviewer made a good point; "if we add that and the school day is the same, what are we eliminating?" People are getting tax breaks for being in love. There will soon be nothing distinguishing heterosexual male female life partnerships from other relationships in law, both will get the benefits... but why do we have those benefits? Why are people being rewarded for getting married? Why does society celebrate that relationship 1 person with another person over other types of relationships? It is a pointless fight. They are making the civil institution of marriage into a bigger sham than it already was becoming on its own. When you say that there is nothing more special about 1 man and 1 woman than any other relationship, civil marriage is pointless.phone typing is a struggle
Because throughout the history of man, the overwhelming majority of married people (or life partners, or common law, or co-habitants) settle, raise children, get jobs, fight wars, pay taxes, then their kids grow up and do the same thing. Two parent households also have children who are far less likley to be burdens to society.
Nuclear families are good for government. They are the backbone of any civilized country, because they are predictable. It's future income for the government, future labor for the economy and future meatshields for the war.
Not saying it's right, just syaing it's good governance.
Well, this is a step in the right direction (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/herman-cain-apologizes-to-muslims.php). Kudos to Mr. Cain for apologizing.
"While I stand by my opposition to the interference of sharia law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends," he said in the statement. "I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it."
A more appropriate response to bullies is a zero-tolerance policy. A more appropriate response is teaching children to have self-esteem and coping skills. Sure, there's malicious bullying that crosses the line into criminal harassment and that needs dealt with. But a zero tolerance policy fails to prepare children for the real world. No matter what age you are, there can be people who like giving you a hard time for whatever reason. It's far better to prepare children for this by teaching them not to measure their own self-worth by what some jerk claims to think of them. "Zero tolerance" policies to almost anything are usually wrong-headed and counterproductive.
Off topic, but I had to get my $0.02 in.... :bow:
Time for an update: New Yorker has a long long long profile of Michelle Bachmann (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all) (with an emphasis on the writers and thinkers who have shaped her worldview), and Salon has an amusing hit piece on Rick Perry (http://www.salon.com/news/rick_perry/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/rick_perry_frontrunner).
Rick Perry may be a neo-Confederate sympathizer with a recurring tendency to bring up secession, but he doesn't look as weird in a photograph as Bachmann does, I guess.
Perry's flirtations with neo-Confederate organizations and symbols -- ably documented by Justin Elliott (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/13/rick_perry_sons_of_confederate_veterans) -- are so extraordinarily reprehensible that it should immediately and permanently disqualify him from being taken seriously for national office. The Confederacy was not a bunch of generally well-meaning dudes who went a little too far, it was a gang of racist traitors who launched a bloody war to defend a monstrously unjust institution. Having neo-Confederate sympathies in America should be equivalent to supporting the reconstituted Fascist party in Italy, or worse. It should not be considered something that 50 percent of the nation should be willing to look past, or even embrace.
Fisherking
08-11-2011, 17:20
Time for an update: New Yorker has a long long long profile of Michelle Bachmann (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all) (with an emphasis on the writers and thinkers who have shaped her worldview), and Salon has an amusing hit piece on Rick Perry (http://www.salon.com/news/rick_perry/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/rick_perry_frontrunner).
Rick Perry may be a neo-Confederate sympathizer with a recurring tendency to bring up secession, but he doesn't look as weird in a photograph as Bachmann does, I guess.
Perry's flirtations with neo-Confederate organizations and symbols -- ably documented by Justin Elliott (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/13/rick_perry_sons_of_confederate_veterans) -- are so extraordinarily reprehensible that it should immediately and permanently disqualify him from being taken seriously for national office. The Confederacy was not a bunch of generally well-meaning dudes who went a little too far, it was a gang of racist traitors who launched a bloody war to defend a monstrously unjust institution. Having neo-Confederate sympathies in America should be equivalent to supporting the reconstituted Fascist party in Italy, or worse. It should not be considered something that 50 percent of the nation should be willing to look past, or even embrace.
I have been in Germany for quite a while now and thankfully don’t need to fallow the daily political happenings of the US.
I don’t know this guy from Adam. If there really is something such as a neo-Confederate then it is a bunch of idiots who deserve to be ignored but why do I jump to the conclusion that he must have been part of a Civil War reenactment group...
Just more political hogwash!
No wonder we always end up having to vote for who we think is least BAD.
If there really is something such as a neo-Confederate then it is a bunch of idiots who deserve to be ignored but why do I jump to the conclusion that he must have been part of a Civil War reenactment group...
Not accurate, sadly. Nobody in their right mind gets worked up about Civil War reenactors.
Perry accepted the endorsement of the "League of the South," who describe their mission just so (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/13/rick_perry_sons_of_confederate_veterans): "The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic." Its core beliefs include the abolition of the income tax and central banking, a Southern republic that "revives the use of State Militias in place of maintaining large, standing armies," and a society that "perpetuates the chivalric ideal of manhood." The group rejects "the American Empire that now occupies the South." (Original text here (http://dixienet.org/rights/corebeliefs.shtml).) Worth noting, though, that the League of the South does not claim him as their own (http://texaslos.org/2011/07/12/all-roads-lead-to-the-league-of-the-south/).
Perry also declared that the secession of Texas was a real possibility (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/texas-governor-says-secession-possible/).
Do I think Perry is serious about any of this? Nope. Do I think he's pandering to the reactionary, secessionist Dixie voter? Yep.
-edit-
On the bright side, polling suggests that a Perry run will effectively close the door (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/10/perry-palin-campaign/) on snowbilly grifter queen Sarah Palin. Which is a good thing. Then again, as Governor Haley Barbour (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/10/palin-bus-tour-to-roll-into-iowa/) recently put it, "she could raise enough money to burn a wet mule." So ... maybe not.
Fisherking
08-11-2011, 17:41
In that case I find it hard to believe that he could get elected Dog Catcher...
Rather more like another Duke candidacy.
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2011, 18:04
I'm not so much worried about Perry's endorsement from the League of the South, but then again I have my own neo-fascist/nationalist/confederate/evil traitor sympathies. (That Salon writer is quite the rhetorician!)
What does bother me, though, is his deep connection to Seven Mountains Dominionism (http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god).
On this day, the Lord’s messengers arrived in the form of two Texas pastors, Tom Schlueter of Arlington and Bob Long of San Marcos, who called on Perry in the governor’s office inside the state Capitol. Schlueter and Long both oversee small congregations, but they are more than just pastors. They consider themselves modern-day apostles and prophets, blessed with the same gifts as Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles.
The pastors told Perry of God’s grand plan for Texas. A chain of powerful prophecies had proclaimed that Texas was “The Prophet State,” anointed by God to lead the United States into revival and Godly government. And the governor would have a special role.
The day before the meeting, Schlueter had received a prophetic message from Chuck Pierce, an influential prophet from Denton, Texas. God had apparently commanded Schlueter—through Pierce—to “pray by lifting the hand of the one I show you that is in the place of civil rule.”
Gov. Perry, it seemed.
Schlueter had prayed before his congregation: “Lord Jesus I bring to you today Gov. Perry. ... I am just bringing you his hand and I pray Lord that he will grasp ahold of it. For if he does you will use him mightily.”
And grasp ahold the governor did. At the end of their meeting, Perry asked the two pastors to pray over him. As the pastors would later recount, the Lord spoke prophetically as Schlueter laid his hands on Perry, their heads bowed before a painting of the Battle of the Alamo. Schlueter “declared over [Perry] that there was a leadership role beyond Texas and that Texas had a role beyond what people understand,” Long later told his congregation.
So you have to wonder: Is Rick Perry God’s man for president?
Schlueter, Long and other prayer warriors in a little-known but increasingly influential movement at the periphery of American Christianity seem to think so. The movement is called the New Apostolic Reformation. Believers fashion themselves modern-day prophets and apostles. They have taken Pentecostalism, with its emphasis on ecstatic worship and the supernatural, and given it an adrenaline shot.
The movement’s top prophets and apostles believe they have a direct line to God. Through them, they say, He communicates specific instructions and warnings. When mankind fails to heed the prophecies, the results can be catastrophic: earthquakes in Japan, terrorist attacks in New York, and economic collapse. On the other hand, they believe their God-given decrees have ended mad cow disease in Germany and produced rain in drought-stricken Texas.
Their beliefs can tend toward the bizarre. Some consider Freemasonry a “demonic stronghold” tantamount to witchcraft. The Democratic Party, one prominent member believes, is controlled by Jezebel and three lesser demons. Some prophets even claim to have seen demons at public meetings. They’ve taken biblical literalism to an extreme. In Texas, they engage in elaborate ceremonies involving branding irons, plumb lines and stakes inscribed with biblical passages driven into the earth of every Texas county.
If they simply professed unusual beliefs, movement leaders wouldn’t be remarkable. But what makes the New Apostolic Reformation movement so potent is its growing fascination with infiltrating politics and government. The new prophets and apostles believe Christians—certain Christians—are destined to not just take “dominion” over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the “Seven Mountains” of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world. They believe they’re intended to lord over it all. As a first step, they’re leading an “army of God” to commandeer civilian government.
In Rick Perry, they may have found their vessel. And the interest appears to be mutual.
Oh, and he was Al Gore's chair in Texas. :rolleyes:
Unless Pawlenty can pull out a big win in Iowa this weekend, I'm increasingly resigned to the fact that I'll be supporting Romney. I'm warming to the idea. He reminds me of an old school Northeastern business Republican, back before Goldwater and then Reagan transformed the party, which is kind of cool in a throwback sense - a modern Calvin Coolidge.
I really don't know what's wrong with Pawlenty. He's fairly socially conservative, very fiscally conservative, and has focused his message on entitlement reform - seems like a great fit to me. Sure he's 'boring' I guess, but what's wrong with boring and competent? It beats... well... this is about the GOP, not the current administration. Huntsman would have been a good choice too, but he was DOA. Who would have thought a Republican governor from Utah would be too moderate for the party?
I'm increasingly resigned to the fact that I'll be supporting Romney. I'm warming to the idea. He reminds me of an old school Northeastern business Republican, back before Goldwater and then Reagan transformed the party, which is kind of cool in a throwback sense - a modern Calvin Coolidge.
I think Romney is the pick of the current litter. He's a terrible politician, but I think he'd be a lot like Bush 41; bad on the stump, loved by few, but reasonable and responsible.
Banquo's Ghost
08-11-2011, 19:38
Oh, and he was Al Gore's chair in Texas. :rolleyes:
That's the part that astonishes me. I know a chap's politics can evolve over time, but from Al Gore to God's Chosen Executioner? And he is taken seriously?
Centurion1
08-11-2011, 20:16
I think Romney is the pick of the current litter. He's a terrible politician, but I think he'd be a lot like Bush 41; bad on the stump, loved by few, but reasonable and responsible.
Debatable it takes more than money for a republican to win somewhere like Massachusetts.
GOP candidate debate tonight, I think it's on Fox News, so those of you who still get broadcast TV can watch it. I guess I'll check out the highlights on YouTube or something like that. Dammit, Netflix, why won't you stream current politics?
a completely inoffensive name
08-11-2011, 21:19
GOP candidate debate tonight, I think it's on Fox News, so those of you who still get broadcast TV can watch it. I guess I'll check out the highlights on YouTube or something like that. Dammit, Netflix, why won't you stream current politics?
Who is debating?
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2011, 04:16
The commentary on all channels has been infuriating and the same. It's like none of the commentators watched the debate and had all of their talking points written before the thing. I love Romney the most, as many of you know, but I think he just did blah tonight. Pawlenty did much better than he has done so far, Bachmann looked okay, Cain looks out of his depth. I thought the winners were Santorum, Paul and Huntsman. They weren't as afraid to say interesting things, probably because of their poll numbers. The clear loser to me was the insufferable Gingrich.
I am horrified that Bachmann is on the House intelligence committee. also, while Fox is the embodiment of garbage, in all honesty the questions were pretty good and moderately damning.
Perry is going to make a big splash.
a completely inoffensive name
08-12-2011, 04:52
I liked the part when Romney said we are very close to no longer being a free market.
(Will edit this with more as I finish watching.)
EDIT 1: I liked the part when Bachmann was accused by Pawlenty saying that she has no accomplishments in Congress. She then responded that she helped pass the Freedom of Light Bulb choice act allowing Americans to choose the lights bulbs they wanted. Yes, that is the kind of big measure that a president makes.
EDIT 2: I liked the part when Huntsman was asked about his policy towards the illegal immigrants already in the US since he is on record for saying that it is unrealistic to kick them all out. He then talked about all the other issues he is conservative on like being pro life for no reason before openly admitting that he doesn't want to answer that question until the border is secure. This might have been the worst question dodge I have ever seen by a candidate.
EDIT 3: I like the part when Cain talked about his 4 part solution, the 4 problems of illegal immigration and why the number 4 is the number 4 for 4 reasons.
EDIT 4: I liked the part when everyone raised their hand and said they would reject a real long term plan to solve the debt problem if there was a ratio of 10 dollars in cuts to every 1 dollar in raising revenue. So now we know that every candidate is not negotiable with Democrats and thus has to have their way at the risk of the country stagnating. Great leadership.
EDIT 5: I liked the part in the very beginning when the moderator asked everyone to not use talking points in this debate and then Michelle Bachmann proceeded to talk about how OBAMA IS A ONE. TERM. PRESIDENT! like in every public venue she has been in.
EDIT 6: I liked the part when Santorum talked about mandates and the Constitution and attributed to Ron Paul the exact opposite of what Ron Paul just said.
EDIT 7: I liked the part when parts 5 and 6 of the 10 part youtube videos I have been watching disappear.
EDIT 8: I liked the part when Ron Paul schooled angry Santorum about Iran-US history.
EDIT 9: I liked the part when Gingrich called every question asked of him a "gotcha" question.
EDIT 10: I liked the part when the crowd kept booing the moderators for asking tough questions based on candidates previous statements.
EDIT 11: I liked the part when Romney said he wanted the marriage issue to be decided on the federal level because people move and "what will happen if a couple move to a state where the marriage isn't recognized, what is the status of the child?" Completely ignorant of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in the Constitution that deals with that.
EDIT 12: I liked the part when Santorum kept trashing Ron Paul for no reason and always had visible looks of disgust on his face whenever Ron Paul talked.
EDIT 13: I liked the part when Pawlenty took a Spiderman quote and turned it into scripture.
It's like none of the commentators watched the debate and had all of their talking points written before the thing.
you don´t think that......nahhhh...that couldn´t happen :laugh4:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/skeletorHemanSocialist.jpg
EDIT 9: I liked the part when Gingrich called every question asked of him a "gotcha" question.
And people say Palin didn´t have a serious political impact....
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2011, 12:52
What a great debate!
Say what you want about Fox News, but Bret Baier doesn't play any gimmicky CNN games. There were no vapid 'Coke or Pepsi' time wasters, and there was no painfully forced youtube involvement for the sole purpose of trying to seem hip. There were, however, tough, sometimes piercing questions that put them all on the spot at one time or another, and moderator challenges when they didn't answer them. Bachmann wasn't able to walk all over the mods like she was in the CNN debate.
Quite frankly, none of them came off great. Between the tougher questions and their seemingly collective decision to drop the nice act and go after each other hard, they all ended up looking like hypocritical politicians - which is what they ultimately are. I think Romney won the night solely because he did not have a big gaffe or damaging sound bite emerge from the evening's event. His explanation of Romney-care even seemed less convoluted. Pawlenty may be out, but I'm glad he tried to drag Bachmann down with him. Finally somebody on the GOP side is questioning why this woman is qualified to run.
My least favorite performance was Huntsman. Does he really think he can out-social conservative Bachmann or Santorum? He's been correctly labeled as a moderate, and should own it. He should have just come out and said "Yeah, I'm not a trailer park Republican. I'm not going to cynically bash the gays, I'm not going to bash the muslims, I'm not going to call for throwing women who've had abortions in jail, and I'm not going to make overt appeals to religion. What I do bring to the table is more business experience than Mitt Romney, a better governing record than Rick Perry, and more foreign policy experience than all the other candidates combined. Take me or leave me." Of course that would never happen, but it would have been refreshing.
Favorite line of the night was Santorum attacking Iran by accusing them of mistreating gays! HAH! He even shuttered a little bit when he said it, almost as if he could hear his rabidly anti-gay base throwing their dinners at their TVs in unison.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2011, 19:07
Im not sure how huntsman could have possibly owned his own record more than he did last night. He came off well for a first time presidential debater
Scarborough - Bachmann is a joke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fUJpeZq_fQ
what you guys think? looking for a new job by this time next week?
ahhh if only you guys could have republicans like the ones on tv..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7oiPIUtp7Q
Centurion1
08-13-2011, 21:22
Scarborough - Bachmann is a joke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fUJpeZq_fQ
what you guys think? looking for a new job by this time next week?
ahhh if only you guys could have republicans like the ones on tv..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7oiPIUtp7Q
joe scarborough works for msnbc which is liberals fox news, he will likely get a pay raise for that rant.
PanzerJaeger
08-13-2011, 23:07
He's completely correct, though. She's an embarrassment to the party that gives the mainstream media a great angle and I believe (hope... pray) that the silent majority of mainstream conservatives will quickly end her candidacy as soon as possible.
PanzerJaeger
08-13-2011, 23:55
And as soon as write that, Bachmann wins the Ames straw poll. Un - effing - believable. The base disregarded a competent, conservative administrator (TPaw) for a welfare queen with less experience than Barack Obama had going into the '08 election. What's happening to the GOP? :shame:
Oh well, Ames isn't a strong predictor of who the eventual nominee will be.
a completely inoffensive name
08-14-2011, 02:26
joe scarborough works for msnbc which is liberals fox news, he will likely get a pay raise for that rant.
Which is why MSNBC fired Keith Olbermann, am I right?
Centurion1
08-14-2011, 02:30
Which is why MSNBC fired Keith Olbermann, am I right?
And which is why Fox fired Glenn Beck. Both got rid of their resident extremists.
Similarities continue, neh?
a completely inoffensive name
08-14-2011, 02:56
And which is why Fox fired Glenn Beck. Both got rid of their resident extremists.
Similarities continue, neh?
Glenn Beck left because he wanted to do other projects. Roger Ailes said he wanted someone to commit to a daily television show, which Beck couldn't juggle with all his other stuff he does.
From wiki:
FNC and Beck announced that he would be teaming with Fox to produce a slate of projects for Fox News and its digital properties.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck#cite_note-foxnews.com-7)
Not much of a similarity if you ask me.
Centurion1
08-14-2011, 03:04
Glenn Beck left because he wanted to do other projects. Roger Ailes said he wanted someone to commit to a daily television show, which Beck couldn't juggle with all his other stuff he does.
From wiki:
FNC and Beck announced that he would be teaming with Fox to produce a slate of projects for Fox News and its digital properties.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck#cite_note-foxnews.com-7)
Not much of a similarity if you ask me.
First of all Roger Ailes is being a sound businessman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/roger-ailes-happy-beck-fired-quit_n_846001.html
http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-fired
It's all spin to not piss off the more ardent beck fans.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/21/did-olbermann-quit-or-was-he-pushed/
Then again..... did MSNBC really want Olbermann gone or did he want to leave too?
No Beck's production company would be doing future projects not Beck himself.
Major Robert Dump
08-14-2011, 10:54
LOL Beck left because if he didn't he would get canned due to having his number of advertisers go from more than 50 to like 2. Buy more gold!!!!
I believe Olberman's ad base went through the floor as well
LOL Beck left because if he didn't he would get canned due to having his number of advertisers go from more than 50 to like 2. Buy more gold!!!!
I believe Olberman's ad base went through the floor as well
Not to get completely derailed, but MRD is half-right. Beck's advertiser load and viewership demo were trending in bad directions, and he was making the majority of his money outside of FNC, so they split. Olbermann, on the other hand, had a habit of irritating his bosses, a trend that has followed him throughout his career. The only reason they put up with him as long as they did at MSNBC is that he had relatively good ratings (for MSNBC, which has always had a poor showing).
Don't know the details, don't really care, but apparently Olbermann did something or another to permanently annoy his corporate overlords, they felt, rightly or wrongly, that they didn't need him anymore. So they canned him.
Similarities? I guess. But more differences than otherwise.
I'm kinda floored by Bachmann winning the straw poll. She is an irresponsible pick, IMHO, both from a realpolitik let's-win-the-election perspective and from a who-would-govern-reasonably perspective.
gaelic cowboy
08-14-2011, 14:10
Would someone explain to me how she won the straw poll??
Is this a statewide poll off the potential electorate or some kind of :daisy: poll of the more lunatic elements
And as soon as write that, Bachmann wins the Ames straw poll. Un - effing - believable. The base disregarded a competent, conservative administrator (TPaw) for a welfare queen with less experience than Barack Obama had going into the '08 election. What's happening to the GOP? :shame:
what happened? they purposely astro turfed a movement for the more fringe elements of their party, because it was helpful in combating Obama.....and now the tail is wagging the dog.
it was always a dangerous and irresponsible move....the head of the GOP might have known what was going on, that is was just tactics and rhetoric to make for good tv coverage, and that when real decisions had to be made the wingnuts would shut up and let the adults decide things.
the problem is that the morons on the ground that were clueless enough to call themselfs tea-baggers were also clueless enough to think it was all for real.
Pawlenty throws in the towel. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/14/us-usa-campaign-pawlenty-idUSTRE77D15920110814)
Pawlenty throws in the towel. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/14/us-usa-campaign-pawlenty-idUSTRE77D15920110814)
That's one competent, seasoned, reasonable candidate down, only two more to go (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/21/romney-and-huntsman-separated-birth).
ICantSpellDawg
08-14-2011, 17:50
That's one competent, seasoned, reasonable candidate down, only two more to go (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/21/romney-and-huntsman-separated-birth).
hahaha. I like Huntsman as my second choice but, fortunately for Romney, his campaign hasn't started out strong and is going nowhere. He'd be a great Sec of State in a Romney administration.
Crazed Rabbit
08-14-2011, 18:13
I hate you National Review. (https://nr-media-01.nationalreview.com/images/cover_overlay_110718.jpg)
CR
Major Robert Dump
08-14-2011, 18:58
I hate you National Review. (https://nr-media-01.nationalreview.com/images/cover_overlay_110718.jpg)
CR
Bah, don't knock it until you read the article. I sense a tone of sarcasm in that title, and I have a feeling that the voter base that Bachman has swooning for her is definitely not the voter base who reads National Review, as National Review often takes very reasonable views where others take black or white.
PanzerJaeger
08-16-2011, 06:02
When a politician holds views I vehemently disagree with, she loses my support. When she doesn't have the courage of her convictions to stand by her beliefs, she loses my respect. What a coward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjMnFnrS2t4&feature=player_embedded
Centurion1
08-16-2011, 06:22
When a politician holds views I vehemently disagree with, she loses my support. When she doesn't have the courage of her convictions to stand by her beliefs, she loses my respect. What a coward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjMnFnrS2t4&feature=player_embedded
I hate that woman. She is polluting the race and if she wins the nomination I don't even know if I want to vote.
well...she just said gays were from Satan....she didn´t say she personally judged them....geezz :P
on another news, very funny and interesting piece on the daily show last night.
why exactly is the media pretending Ron Paul does not exist, even after the results of the Ames poll?Ron Paul becomes the 13th floor in a hotel (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier?xrs=share_copy)
Banquo's Ghost
08-16-2011, 14:47
I'm not sure how credible Governor Perry can be as a presidential candidate when he delivers interviews like this (http://www.justin.tv/texastribune/b/271926172).
One despairs. An intelligent, socially moderate but fiscal conservative would surely guarantee the White House to the GOP next year, but they are wasting time with these clowns?
One despairs. An intelligent, socially moderate but fiscal conservative would surely guarantee the White House to the GOP next year, but they are wasting time with these clowns?
Both Romney and Huntsman fit that bill. Of the two, I prefer Huntsman, but he's polling like TPaw right now.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-16-2011, 22:22
I'm not sure how credible Governor Perry can be as a presidential candidate when he delivers interviews like this (http://www.justin.tv/texastribune/b/271926172).
One despairs. An intelligent, socially moderate but fiscal conservative would surely guarantee the White House to the GOP next year, but they are wasting time with these clowns?
The social moderates tend to underwhelm the GOP base. When they get nominations, they tend to fare poorly against most dems since the dems can point to a long track record of social progressivism. The moderate GOPer comes off looking as though they're the sidekick saying "me too, so am I." Ends up turning to Dem advantage every time.
Fiscal conservatism is in, but the Tea Party wing is ardent about more than just lip service to this. They want sweeping changes and hacked back budgets. This is fiscal conservatism bordering on reactionary. Most of those with a solid appeal to the Tea Party wing trend towards social reactionary status as well...which whips up the turnout numbers among the democrat left. Bit of a two--edged sword.
Really though, the nomination was decided a while back with an effective series of rubber chicken dinners. After Romney middles his way up the field and slowly bankrupts the opposition, he will end up with the nomination. He will then pick a conservative with stronger claims on the social issue right wingers but less loaded with negatives. Somebody like McDonal from Virginia or an Ohioan so as to "take back" a state that generally goes GOP but went for Obama last time around.
Romney will then move back to the center -- where his beliefs are on most issues -- and underwhelm the base, some of whom will stay home; fail to make real inroads among mugwumpers who won't see real difference between him and Obama; and lose a few of the "LDS folks are all satan worshipper" types (not much loss per se, but adds to base erosion). Obama will then knit together a narrow win in the popular vote with a solid victory in the College and repeat as President.
EDIT: One further factor among the mugwumpers. Quite a few of them, lacking a clear sense of one candidate being "better" than the other, will not be able to bring themselves to cast a vote against the first black President. Romney must WIN the "independents," as a tie leaves Obama with this psychological edge. Romney won't, so that's all she wrote.
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2011, 06:10
This is fiscal conservatism bordering on reactionary.
Ehhhh, let's call it for what it is.
I would be willing to vote Republican if you had an intellectual conservative in there. But most of those that post in here seem surprised that yet again, the GOP base is made up of reactionaries and bible thumpers with no philosophical consistency.
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2011, 06:16
Omg, omg, omg. Ron Paul's new ad!
http://youtu.be/Yk0bFHanY-0
Omg, omg, omg. Ron Paul's new ad!
Pretty darn epic. Too bad he exists in a state of permanent media blackout.
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2011, 07:44
Pretty darn epic. Too bad he exists in a state of permanent media blackout.
Yep, just like the past 4 elections he has participated in.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.