From an outsiders perspective, Kucinich looks like the kind of guy I would want running my country.
Printable View
From an outsiders perspective, Kucinich looks like the kind of guy I would want running my country.
Didn't we recently see a thread about Ron Paul proposing legislation to abolish the Fed? Is that something he doesn't consider "distruptive"? I think most normal people would consider that pretty radical a change. I don't suppose the journo brought that up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The crime decrease was better before he took office. He would have to show that the trend wouldn't have continued if it weren't for his actions. He hasn't done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Another Clinton volunteer asked to resign for Obama smear emails.
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil. If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
Hilary is nervous, he has a real shot at loosing Iowa to Obama and just 2 weeks ago the press had practically annointed her emperess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Newt awaits? :inquisitive:Quote:
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil. If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
Seriously, if she happens to get the prize he might be the best choice for the right to resurge. I still havent figured out why he isnt running, certainly he would be in the top 3 with this field.
A renaissance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
have they gone anywhere?
last time I looked they´re in office right now.
Uhm, no offense to you or Politico there Lemur, but have either of you seen the campaign ads from Giuliani, McCain or Romney lately? Since September, all 3 have been running against Hillary, not each other. Just about the only Republican I haven't seen make the point how unlike Hillary they are the focal point of an ad is Ron Paul, very much to his credit (one of the few things I like about the guy, actually).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
P.S. For those of you who aren't all that politically active, "Far-right" = "believe that maybe the government doesn't have the answer to every problem".
The GOP is very much in decline at the moment. As with all things it's temporary, but a Hillary presidency would definitely hasten teh rebirth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I love how unsettled our Republican Orgahs get after spending some time in the Toe-Tappin' thread. You find the thread where I've advocated Socialism, statism or bigger government, and I'll give you a balloon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
One has nothing to do with the other, mon ami. I just find it amusing the way you, Hillary, and so many other Democrats like to use these big scary terms like "the extreme far-right" to describe anybody that doesn't vote Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The point Politico is making, and with which I agree, is that the Hil will yield great results in unrelated campaigns. If the Republicans want to arrest their slide in the House and Senate, a Hillary candidacy will certainly help. She's so divisive, she could potentially hand the Congress back to the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I trust I am saying this like the leftie, Daily Kos-reading Hillary supporter that you just know I am.
Take a deep breath and relax. For one thing, I don't think you support Hillary. You've made that point repeatedly, and if I remember correctly, you're an Obama man. Second, I believe the Daily-Kos reference is to a post I made in another thread. How about we keep our discussions distinct? Finally, I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but terms like 'extreme far-right' and 'very far-right' get as thrown around way, way, way too much. According to its popular usage among Democrats, I am the extreme far-right (a characterization I take great umbrage with). Now, I will grant you, there is an exact parallel on the Right, calling everyone a liberal socialist. I don't agree with that either. I see a vast amount of daylight between a Dennis Kucinich and a Bill Richardson (whom I was actually considering this fall).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As for the point of your post and link, my point in my reply post (with the exception of the post script) was that you seem to be heralding an event that I have seen for some time. Hell, didn't Sasaki post that bit in 2006 about 'vote for Democrats this fall, and Al Queda would be invading the U.S. by the summer of 2009'? Running against boogeymen is a tactic that seems to go on ad nauseum. Sadly, it's not 'starting' right now as you suggest. I can send you RNC fundraising letters I've received over the past year that talked all about the need to support local Republican candidates to check Hillary's march to power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You aren't.
And I agree about the Hilldabeast polarizing politics to a point of massive reactionary swelling. I will be using that rational if she wins, but it is not a reason to wish her to office anymore than christians should wish for hell on earth in the end times... so that they can go to heaven. Dread it, but if it happens look on the bright side.
Lets hope that doesn't happen.
(this statement was paid for by friends of Mitt Romney)
Not exactly ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I take your point about how Hillary has been used for boogeyman purposes for years. To my knowledge, though, this is the first use of her in a TV spot for the 2008 congressional ... oh, nevermind. I guess it's not very interesting, although I thought it was at the time.
He voted McCain in this poll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
This is extremely encouraging: Huckabee, Paul and McCain are now all on record as unequivocally opposing torture as policy. Yes, that includes "enhanced interrogation methods," to use the Orwellian euphemism of the day.
Mike Huckabee told reporters that waterboarding is torture and that "torture should not be the policy of the United States of America." Although interrogations of enemy detainees should be "thorough," Mr. Huckabee said, "when we go to the point of violating our own moral code, then instead of advancing our country, its safety and our security, we in fact jeopardize it." [...]
"My friends, this is what America is all about," Mr. McCain said. "This is a defining issue and clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America."
My humble apologies, but I was close. :bow: And yes, you're right, it's probably the first 2008 congressional ad to invoke the evil of Hillary, but probably because it's one of the first congressional ads for 2008 to run. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Seriously, I can understand the Rush Limbaugh's of the world making hay off the evils of Hillary. As an entertainer that panders to a segment of the Republican population that reacts to it, it makes sense. But I find it distasteful and disconcerting that McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have each spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to run political ads to do it. Here's an idea... talk about YOU!!! :help:
I might agree that the government should officially never put anyone in the criminal system to death. That should be for the states to decide. The Feds are the last leg of appeals and if anything went to that level due to questions in procedure, the death penalty's legitimacy is in question in that instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think the Death penalty is a hindrance for justice in some courts. Juries may be reluctant to put a "guilty" verdict in the hands of the judge because he may condemn the accused to death. This may, in their minds, up the ante and reduce chances for a solid conviction.
Life without the possibility of parole is more of an intense punishment anyway and modern prisons are pretty airtight. Possibly, states could reserve the death penalty only for the most heinous multiple murderers who showed signs of extreme mental prowess in overcoming obstacles.
I am no expert, just some ideas.
I am not an expert on this
Way off topic, Tuff, but they're only airtight with regards to unplanned departures. The current parole system is entirely too lax and lenient, IMHO. That being said, it shouldn't impact a discussion of the death penalty, it's either morally acceptable for the state to execute somebody, or it isn't (my vote would be no).
And I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this one, but I'd really like to see an 'acceptable' vs. 'unacceptable' list that gets down to brass tacks before we go signing off on limiting the government's ability to interrogate a prisoner. To some, having 1-ply toilet paper is considered torture.
Also, I think hostility toward the Republicans in general is understandable. People are very sore with them right now. As a rather right leaning voter, I feel betrayed by the Republican led congress and Republican President getting very little done. I feel as though pro-life issues and smaller government were used as props to get elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I feel like bashing some Republicans often.
(oh crap, I read torture as death penalty. talk about subconscious. What an idiot. I think I'm going retarded. Today I read a phone number's last digits 0800. I copied them as 8126)
Oh believe me, nobody could make arguments against the Republican establishment than I can right now. As a fiscal conservative, I'm totally disgusted and generally mistrustful based on how the past 7 years have gone. Ted Stevens should have been thrown out of the caucus, it's not like it would cost us a majority.... But I'd like to see a little more anger about the things they really have done wrong. In many ways, it proves my point... hit the mute button for a second... just based on voting records and spending, can you tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican congress or White House?
Complete and utter agreement. That's why I'm hoping for another divided government. I guess there's no guarantee that will result in a slowdown of government pork and largesse, but it's the best hope we've got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
That said, I'm wide open to any other suggestions on how we can tamp down our government's endless appetite for power and money.
Well, whatdya know.TWO grassroots volunteers asked to resign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:sleeping:
Wake me up when the swiftboating begins.
This will happen with all Dem candidates. The only difference between Hillary and the others is that Hillary has been a high-profile, leading candidate since the beginning. The others, at least the one eventual nominee, merely have some catching up to do. By November '08 half of America will have become convinced the Rep candidate is Adolf Hitler and the other half that the Dem candidate is Satan.Quote:
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil. If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
It's the same drill over and over again. Everybody already knows what's going to happen. The Rep candidate will be demonised as being 'evil, big business puppet, close-mided, hick, hateful'. The Dem candidate will be attacked for being 'amoral, big spender, flip-flop, questionable ethics, slick'.
As an aside: If you are so worried about polarisation, then don't fall for it. You are a declared independent. Why repeat the partisan hatred and smear campaigns that make the American political landscape so vile and polarised? Sometimes you are great at exposing the hypocrisy of either camp. At other times, you are dangerously close to just repeating the bile of either.
I think a big start would be to stop paying Congressmen a salary. They didn't receive one in the early days (they were compensated for expenses). This would help to eliminate the professional politician, which is where a lot of this crap comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't know about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
But, if you feel that way - Vote Romney. He refused his salary as Governor of Mass.
It's gonna be worse than that. I hear dead philosophers are now sponsoring attack ads, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
This one cracks me up, too.
Funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I like the Jefferson one better
As nice as that is, I still won't even consider voting Mitt. I mean, I've heard of flip-flopping before, but this guy's ridiculous. Did you see those two links I posted earlier? I'd trust GWB to follow his word more than Mitt, and that's saying something. Although, to be fair, Mitt at least isn't completely incompetent like Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That's fair. I don't mind flip-floppers. Who wants people to sit in office and think that they know better than their own constituents (Clinton, McCain, Giuliani). That's what this system is based on - REPRESENTATION. If his ethics are in question that is one thing, but to condemn a person for changing their mind based on personal or constituent opinion is another.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
I didn't care when they called Kerry a flip-flopper. I didn't like him because of his constituency and his weak/unconvincing way of changing his opinion. If he flip-flopped in my direction that would have been great.
Mitt has strong opinions, but in the interest of representative government, he knows when to shut up and when to speak up. Find me a successful person in life who doesn't do that. This has nothing to do with ethics - of which I believe Romney has plenty.
Please send me the links in PM
Sent.
I'm not so sure about Giuliani anymore...
If I could vote again, I think I'd pick Nietzsche.