PDA

View Full Version : The official Election 2012 discussion thread...


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

Dexter
02-08-2012, 10:48 AM
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154035/how_a_few_ãœber-wealthy_donors_helped_buy_republicans_a_presidenti al_field_they_hate?page=1

Just an interesting article for anyone who wants to read about how screwed up the election process is.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 10:50 AM
He's also incredibly inconsistent on his values. Although I wish he'd change a few.

I used to think this sort of thing myself. But I'm starting to wonder if it's not going to take some malleability in order to navigate the current political culture in Washington. Everyone has their principles. But I think we've seen how far teams drawing their lines in the sand has taken us.

In reality, Mitt's probably not nearly as liberal as he was being governor of Mass. or as conservative (if you want to call it that) as he's trying to be when winning a Republican primary.

In some ways, he might be able to bridge the divide in ways an ideologue can't. But even as I write that, I'm torn. Like everyone else, I have values I don't want to see compromised.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 10:52 AM
an idiot with an opinion who thinks , thats rare

Ahh, the one-line personal attack again. I guess that puts you on that other side of the fence with those other two. :)

Spider
02-08-2012, 10:54 AM
Values ? screw that , give me another clinton , dont give a rats ass what he does in his personal time , but he got us in High cotton

Spider
02-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Ahh, the one-line personal attack again. I guess that puts you on that other side of the fence with those other two. :)

;D I am in a class all by myself , but I do call you an Idiot cause you are , seriously , if you make under 250 K a year you would be an idiot to vote for any repub...... I for one enjoy the hell out of the tax break Obama gave me , you elect a republican those wage tax cuts go bye bye ..........

Rigs11
02-08-2012, 11:11 AM
;D I am in a class all by myself , but I do call you an Idiot cause you are , seriously , if you make under 250 K a year you would be an idiot to vote for any repub...... I for one enjoy the hell out of the tax break Obama gave me , you elect a republican those wage tax cuts go bye bye ..........

Somebodys gotta pay that deficit off spider

bendog
02-08-2012, 11:17 AM
Notice how few of the jobs listed can be outsoursed, e.g. you can't outsource a job caring for an alzheimer's patient. You can outsource jobs like .... architects, chemist, software engineer .....

Spider
02-08-2012, 11:20 AM
Somebodys gotta pay that deficit off spider

:~ohyah!: 2 years ago I got 1 hellva fine for driving over mile marker 5 north bound on I 25 , I needed the 12 foot spacing and I only had 10 foot , 1,500$ on the drives , 1708$ on the tri axle , I was legal for all of the rest of Colorado , the sur charge on that was 2,800 $$$ .........I need all the tax breaks I can get

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 12:08 PM
:~ohyah!: 2 years ago I got 1 hellva fine for driving over mile marker 5 north bound on I 25 , I needed the 12 foot spacing and I only had 10 foot , 1,500$ on the drives , 1708$ on the tri axle , I was legal for all of the rest of Colorado , the sur charge on that was 2,800 $$$ .........I need all the tax breaks I can get

Well, there you have it folks. Now if only we can get the federal government to collect 5 billion more of these fines, it'll all be smooth sailin'. :)

TonyR
02-08-2012, 12:12 PM
GOP doesn't get it. Economy is the #1 issue and they have so far rejected Huntsman, Paul and not really liking Romney. Yet last night they vote for a big spending social conservative that will get steamrolled in the General. What gives?

Romney might have been the candidate to defeat Barack Obama on the economy, but with the unemployment rate falling – and the government appearing to overreach on "values" issues – voters may sense that Rick Santorum is better-positioned to draw a sharper contrast with Obama.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/08/gop-race-minnesota-missouri-colorado-results

alkemical
02-08-2012, 12:16 PM
all the other kids with the pumped up kicks....

Spider
02-08-2012, 12:30 PM
Well, there you have it folks. Now if only we can get the federal government to collect 5 billion more of these fines, it'll all be smooth sailin'. :)

or tax the wealthy ...........

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 12:33 PM
or tax the wealthy ...........

Not where the money is.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

alkemical
02-08-2012, 12:33 PM
http://static.neatorama.com/images/2012-02/how-to-talk-about-the-economy.jpg

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
02-08-2012, 12:36 PM
oh you idiots just vote for this guy
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AN2Bx_LK2io" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Spider
02-08-2012, 12:46 PM
Not where the money is.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

what a load of bullshiat ............seriously I read it with an open mind and this guy is a ****ing idiot , sure there has to be cuts , but tax the wealthy ........ not sure who is more full of shiat , you or that guy

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 01:01 PM
what a load of bullshiat ............seriously I read it with an open mind and this guy is a ****ing idiot , sure there has to be cuts , but tax the wealthy ........ not sure who is more full of shiat , you or that guy

LOLz @ Trucker, Texas Ranger calling anyone FOS. I posted that article because it does a good job putting the dollar amounts we're talking in perspective, (like I tried by saying your big fine would have to be incurred 15 times by every man woman and child in the US in order to pay off our debt)

Here's it put another way...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

It's hard to believe, but we're running deficits larger than could be balanced by confiscating every penny of taxable income earned by the 1%ers. Not taxing them. Taking it all.

Think about that.

bendog
02-08-2012, 01:13 PM
Spider it's not worth the effort, though every post the guy makes validates Alkemical's original premise of group think.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 01:20 PM
Spider it's not worth the effort, though every post the guy makes validates Alkemical's original premise of group think.

Yeah, the free thinkers hate getting specific. They like plans like

1. First Raise Taxes on Rich. Lots
2. Watch Benjamins roll in.
3. Count Benjamins
4. See if Benjamins can pay tha billz.
5. If not enough Benjamins GOTO Step 1.

Paladin
02-08-2012, 01:22 PM
At least I am one of the 'Other Two". That makes me worthy opposition!!!!!!!!







(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

Spider
02-08-2012, 01:23 PM
LOLz @ Trucker, Texas Ranger calling anyone FOS. I posted that article because it does a good job putting the dollar amounts we're talking in perspective, (like I tried by saying your big fine would have to be incurred 15 times by every man woman and child in the US in order to pay off our debt)

Here's it put another way...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html



It's hard to believe, but we're running deficits larger than could be balanced by confiscating every penny of taxable income earned by the 1%ers. Not taxing them. Taking it all.

Think about that.

translation = But spider , we need Americans like you flipping the bill, after all what good is being privileged if you have to help pay ?

Spider
02-08-2012, 01:24 PM
Spider it's not worth the effort, though every post the guy makes validates Alkemical's original premise of group think.

^5

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 01:31 PM
translation = But spider , we need Americans like you flipping the bill, after all what good is being privileged if you have to help pay ?

Believe me. When it comes time to pay the piper, every one of us will be flipping the bill. Once Americans reconnect with the fact that they're ultimately the ones paying the bills, they won't like the ROI coming out of Washington.

Spider
02-08-2012, 01:40 PM
Believe me. When it comes time to pay the piper, every one of us will be flipping the bill. Once Americans reconnect with the fact that they're ultimately the ones paying the bills, they won't like the ROI coming out of Washington.

LMAO I would gladly pay what your ass pays in taxes , you dont even want to go there ....... hell the way it is set up now for my IFTA tax ( is a tax that allows me the privilege to buy fuel ,)it is cheaper to pay all the lower 48 then just to select a few states , I pay fuel tax in New Jersey even though I havent been there in a few years , I pay more tax on my baseplate then you do in a month , not to mention my road use tax , my heavy haul tax , fuel tax at the pump ........... I would go through 300 gallons every 2 days , imagine the tax on that , and now you want me to believe that the wealthy shouldnt have to pay ?

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 01:47 PM
LMAO I would gladly pay what your ass pays in taxes , you dont even want to go there ....... hell the way it is set up now for my IFTA tax is a tax that allows me the privilege to buy fuel ,it is cheaper to pay all the lower 48 then just to select a few states , I pay fuel tax in New Jersey even though I havent been there in a few years , I pay more tax on my baseplate then you do in a month , not to mention my road use tax , my heavy haul tax , fuel tax at the pump ........... I would go through 300 gallons every 2 days , imagine the tax on that , and now you want me to believe that the wealthy shouldnt have to pay ?

In the business world that's all part of the cost of doing business. Would be like Mitt bragging about all the taxes the corporations he owns stock in pay.

And that's all a distraction anyway. Go back and read what I posted. I said the problem is too big to outsource to "The Rich"

Stick with me now. We're running Trillion+ Deficits in a country where the evil 1%ers don't even have 1 Trillion in taxable income. To the realists out there, that's kind of a problem.

Spider
02-08-2012, 01:50 PM
In the business world that's all part of the cost of doing business. Would be like Mitt bragging about all the taxes the corporations he owns stock in pay.

And that's all a distraction anyway. Go back and read what I posted. I said the problem is too big to outsource to "The Rich"

Stick with me now. We're running Trillion+ Deficits in a country where the evil 1%ers don't even have 1 Trillion in taxable income. To the realists out there, that's kind of a problem.

LMAO so in other words , guys like me should be thankful for getting screwed cause the top%1 doesnt have enough money ? and no Mitt doesnt pay that much in tax ....... So to big to outsource to the rich , so they shouldnt have to pay more ........good argument :rofl:

pricejj
02-08-2012, 01:54 PM
or tax the wealthy ...........

The Democrats grand plan to tax all "millionaires" with a 30% tax rate, proposed in the Senate, would only generate a whopping...


...$50B in tax revenue.

Taxing the "rich" has always been a false warcry. Taxing the middle income earners...lots more...is the only way they can pay for current federal spending levels. It's not just letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire for everyone either...there would have to be an additional $500B raised on top of that.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 01:58 PM
LMAO so in other words , guys like me should be thankful for getting screwed cause the top%1 doesnt have enough money ? and no Mitt doesnt pay that much in tax ....... So to big to outsource to the rich , so they shouldnt have to pay more ........good argument :rofl:

Yeah, "I pay lots of gas tax, therefore everything else is someone else's problem"

Makes sense. To someone. Maybe.

bendog
02-08-2012, 02:08 PM
It cannot be about raising rates, though that's not without some merit. The real money is in doing what Reagan did .... increasing the size of the pie that is subject to tax by eliminating loopholes and tax breaks that have the least economic justification. Note how both parties seek to avoid that discussion, and hence the connenction to Alkemical's thesis.

This message is not directed to Beevis, who if he comments will be ignored by me and hopefully all others.

edit: do not read this as suggesting spending should be left as it is.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 02:12 PM
This message is not directed to Beevis, who if he comments will be ignored by me and hopefully all others.

Team open minded has to close and lock the doors when presented with unfortunate facts they don't want to think about. LOL

Spider
02-08-2012, 02:12 PM
It cannot be about raising rates, though that's not without some merit. The real money is in doing what Reagan did .... increasing the size of the pie that is subject to tax by eliminating loopholes and tax breaks that have the least economic justification. Note how both parties seek to avoid that discussion, and hence the connenction to Alkemical's thesis.

This message is not directed to Beevis, who if he comments will be ignored by me and hopefully all others.

edit: do not read this as suggesting spending should be left as it is.

;) of course , and we need cuts all across the board , well except for SS , those people earned that shiat , maybe raise the retirement age ....... I m for a strong military , i think it is right we can kicks the living shiat out of anyone , but lets be honest , the military can use some trimming ....... oh and raise tariffs ,we cant afford the trade deficit we have now , that thing is worse then all of our spending ......

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 02:14 PM
The Democrats grand plan to tax all "millionaires" with a 30% tax rate, proposed in the Senate, would only generate a whopping...


...$50B in tax revenue.

Taxing the "rich" has always been a false warcry. Taxing the middle income earners...lots more...is the only way they can pay for current federal spending levels. It's not just letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire for everyone either...there would have to be an additional $500B raised on top of that.

Doesn't matter jj. What matters is those goosebumps you get when you take stuff from those who have more than you. :)

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2012, 02:28 PM
It cannot be about raising rates, though that's not without some merit. The real money is in doing what Reagan did .... increasing the size of the pie that is subject to tax by eliminating loopholes and tax breaks that have the least economic justification. Note how both parties seek to avoid that discussion, and hence the connenction to Alkemical's thesis.

Bowles - Simpson started down that road. When that got circularly filed without any support from the President or any debate in congress, it pretty much meant any real compromise on the deficit was DOA.

As I believed back then. Any compromise that can work will be deeply unpopular with both sides. No way it'll get done though if both sides walk away without even a discussion.

Cito Pelon
02-08-2012, 07:41 PM
It cannot be about raising rates, though that's not without some merit. The real money is in doing what Reagan did .... increasing the size of the pie that is subject to tax by eliminating loopholes and tax breaks that have the least economic justification. Note how both parties seek to avoid that discussion, and hence the connenction to Alkemical's thesis.

This message is not directed to Beevis, who if he comments will be ignored by me and hopefully all others.

edit: do not read this as suggesting spending should be left as it is.

Seems kind of weird to me - RE: the tax code - that big corporations often pay less in taxes to the IRS than those corporations pay their CEO's in base salary.

The deal is, the corporation can deduct from their bottom line the stock options paid to the CEO (and other Executive Officers), thereby paying themselves more, and paying less corporate taxes to the IRS.

THEN, those CEO's, because much of their income came from those stock options and dividends on the stock they own in those corporations, pay a lower percentage to the IRS than ordinary income.

Rigs11
02-08-2012, 08:14 PM
Doesn't matter jj. What matters is those goosebumps you get when you take stuff from those who have more than you. :)

Yeah those poor rich bastards and their low tax rates.instead let's just keep screaming about the deficit and not pay it down at all.50 billion?pfftt..not worth it.

lonestar
02-08-2012, 08:33 PM
Yeah, the free thinkers hate getting specific. They like plans like

1. First Raise Taxes on Rich. Lots
2. Watch Benjamins roll in.
3. Count Benjamins
4. See if Benjamins can pay tha billz.
5. If not enough Benjamins GOTO Step 1.


Or just print more.

lonestar
02-08-2012, 08:53 PM
Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 08:02 AM ET


The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

The two-year increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Government dependence has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. D.C.-based Heritage has produced the index for nine years.

The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.

At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.

Other findings:


The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% in the past two years.

In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income.

The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.

Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.

But Beach says his team's research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

lonestar
02-08-2012, 09:00 PM
Halftime in America

http://youtu.be/-j_8qCbHsUA

Sorry do not know how to utube this..

24champ
02-08-2012, 11:19 PM
http://i.imgur.com/a554f.gif


Hilarious!

SoCalBronco
02-08-2012, 11:22 PM
24, you have to be concerned about the problems your boy Mitt seems to be having in caucus states and also the intensity/turnout gap in states he does well in vis a vis the other candidates. Some of those turnout figures were awful yesterday. It will be very difficult for Mitt to defeat Obama if he can't energize GOP voters to show up.

He needs a very strong showing in Arizona.

Drek
02-09-2012, 07:26 AM
24, you have to be concerned about the problems your boy Mitt seems to be having in caucus states and also the intensity/turnout gap in states he does well in vis a vis the other candidates. Some of those turnout figures were awful yesterday. It will be very difficult for Mitt to defeat Obama if he can't energize GOP voters to show up.

He needs a very strong showing in Arizona.

You could shorten this entire post up to "It will be very difficult for Mitt to defeat Obama".

Going to be so much GOP angst when Obama wins in another landslide. As it is the republican party has cleared the way for a midwest strategy where Obama can leverage the anti-collective bargaining legislation pushed in Wisconsin and Ohio and the strong opposition groundswell to take those swing states. Obama will also be viewed as the man who saved the auto industry and therefore saved Detroit/Flint, giving him an easy win in Michigan. If he's facing Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney it'll just be far easier. Once he has WI, OH, and MI he just needs one other state out of all the remaining swing states to land a W. No way any of the GOP candidates can run the table on all nine of the remaining swing states.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 07:35 AM
You could shorten this entire post up to "It will be very difficult for Mitt to defeat Obama".

Going to be so much GOP angst when Obama wins in another landslide. As it is the republican party has cleared the way for a midwest strategy where Obama can leverage the anti-collective bargaining legislation pushed in Wisconsin and Ohio and the strong opposition groundswell to take those swing states. Obama will also be viewed as the man who saved the auto industry and therefore saved Detroit/Flint, giving him an easy win in Michigan. If he's facing Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney it'll just be far easier. Once he has WI, OH, and MI he just needs one other state out of all the remaining swing states to land a W. No way any of the GOP candidates can run the table on all nine of the remaining swing states.

It's quite sad when forcing the legislature to take a hard stance on anything guarantees you to lose. I say that as sad for the state of the country rather than sad for the prospects of any political party. We're clearly at the point where the people are voting themselves the treasury and noone seems concerned.

And Ron Paul fans can bite me as that clown hasn't and still isn't truly interested in winning the nomination. He's just using the publicity.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 07:43 AM
It's quite sad when forcing the legislature to take a hard stance on anything guarantees you to lose. I say that as sad for the state of the country rather than sad for the prospects of any political party. We're clearly at the point where the people are voting themselves the treasury and noone seems concerned.

Sadder thing is you have people wearing it like a badge of pride. "Can't believe people vote against their own interests'

There's a principle in not looking at things that way.

Madison was pretty worried about this in the Federalist. People voting primarily in their own interest was predicted to be the undoing of the Republic. Our system was designed in part to counteract it. Unfortunately we've broken some of those barriers down over the years.

But we will rue the day that "We are the 99%!" becomes "We are the 51%!"

Our only hope is that we can hold together 51% who'll vote on principle over their own self-interest.

bendog
02-09-2012, 07:48 AM
Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 08:02 AM ET


.

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

The original link to the heritage org sponsored study attributes most of the rise to the aging population. Thus, you are blaming Obama for people aging out.

ps, don't read this as support for Obama's job performance, but ..... lets be real.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 07:58 AM
Why did Santorum win those three states? Because the turnout was less than 4% of the electorate. The most rabid of the rabid social conservatives came out, but not much else. Romney's support in Florida was down 27% from 2008. The media is trying to keep this going because that's how they sell advertising, but this one has Titanic written all over it.

Spider
02-09-2012, 07:59 AM
LMAO heritage foundation .......

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 07:59 AM
The original link to the heritage org sponsored study attributes most of the rise to the aging population. Thus, you are blaming Obama for people aging out.

ps, don't read this as support for Obama's job performance, but ..... lets be real.

What is the value of a boogeyman if you can't blame everything on him?

Spider
02-09-2012, 08:00 AM
Why did Santorum win those three states? Because the turnout was less than 4% of the electorate. The most rabid of the rabid social conservatives came out, but not much else. Romney's support in Florida was down 27% from 2008. The media is trying to keep this going because that's how they sell advertising, but this one has Titanic written all over it.

Yeah except for the extreme right , most people are pretty happy with how things are going ....... we still have along ways to go , but on we are on the way to recovery

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 08:09 AM
What is the value of a boogeyman if you can't blame everything on him?

Yeah, we saw that for 8 years. Then the truth emerged (again this morning)

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19923051

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national-security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.
Obama also has relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America's defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama's drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns. Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones.

Everyone's always willing to double down as long as it's their guy doing it and not the other guy.

Spider
02-09-2012, 08:11 AM
Yeah, we saw that for 8 years. Then the truth emerged (again this morning)

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19923051



Everyone's always willing to double down as long as it's their guy doing it and not the other guy.

see another misleading thing , it wasnt about shutting down gitmo , it was shutting down the torture that was going on there ......

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 08:15 AM
Yeah, we saw that for 8 years. Then the truth emerged (again this morning)

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19923051



Everyone's always willing to double down as long as it's their guy doing it and not the other guy.

Yeah, right. Now poll them on social security, healthcare, education, energy, environment, etc etc etc. Cherry picking.

TonyR
02-09-2012, 08:17 AM
There's good reason to believe Romney's relentlessly negative campaigning against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich—and, prospectively, Santorum—is driving up his unfavorables and killing his standing with independents...The more time and money that Romney is forced to spend fending off attacks on his right flank, the longer he will have to wait to repair his brand in the general-election fight against President Obama. Equally obviously, Romney can't openly make this plea. He can't say to conservatives, "Hey, stop attacking me now, because I need to start looking moderate soon!"

Romney is in a sort of self-circling death trap: The more mud he's forced to sling at his conservative opponents, the more muddy he looks to the low-information middle. In effect, Romney grows weaker by acting stronger. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2012/02/08/what-the-rick-santorum-sweep-means-for-mitt-romney

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 08:20 AM
see another misleading thing , it wasnt about shutting down gitmo , it was shutting down the torture that was going on there ......

Wow. Good to see at least you're consistent in your goalpost shifting.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-flouts-law-guantanamo-despite-obama-vow-u-120203436.html

Heck, I hear we can even have the CIA target and assassinate US citizens now without even hearing about legal rights or due process.

And all the 'civil libertarians' in the Democratic party jump for joy.

bendog
02-09-2012, 08:22 AM
What is the value of a boogeyman if you can't blame everything on him?

Well, fair or not, the current potus usually gets blamed or praised for the econ. Clinton benefited from Poppy raising taxes to keep the deficits from exploding and rates low, and Bushii benefited from Slick keeping spending less than growth, but Obama owns the economy whether that's fair or not.

during the past 3 years, both parties have played politics with the aging population and medicare and soc sec. I don't know what credibility the original study has or has not, but like duh spending is going up. And the fact is that AARP is gonna vote out anyone who really wants to gut senior benefits. As far as I can see neither party really addressed this.

Spider
02-09-2012, 08:22 AM
Wow. Good to see at least you're consistent in your goalpost shifting.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-flouts-law-guantanamo-despite-obama-vow-u-120203436.html

Heck, I hear we can even have the CIA target and assassinate US citizens now without even hearing about legal rights or due process.

And all the 'civil libertarians' in the Democratic party jump for joy.

Hilarious! if bullshiat was music , you would be the entire brass section ........

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 08:22 AM
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2012/02/08/what-the-rick-santorum-sweep-means-for-mitt-romney

Hillary vs Obama was about as brutal as two people from one side of the aisle can get. If Obama survived it, Romney will (not that he were going to win if it had never happened, of course).

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 08:25 AM
Wow. Good to see at least you're consistent in your goalpost shifting.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-flouts-law-guantanamo-despite-obama-vow-u-120203436.html

Heck, I hear we can even have the CIA target and assassinate US citizens now without even hearing about legal rights or due process.

And all the 'civil libertarians' in the Democratic party jump for joy.

LOL

I don't see that loser's messages anymore but he took his stupidity to the extreme there. Ds weren't calling for the closing of Gitmo? ROFL! Then why was it such an important part of Obama's campaign pledges?

BroncoInferno
02-09-2012, 08:27 AM
Super PAC supporting Ron Paul is operated by a 9/11 'truther'

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10358155-super-pac-supporting-ron-paul-is-operated-by-a-911-truther

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 08:29 AM
Super PAC supporting Ron Paul is operated by a 9/11 'truther'

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10358155-super-pac-supporting-ron-paul-is-operated-by-a-911-truther

Pledging to audit the fed will surely bring in plenty of these types.

Drek
02-09-2012, 08:33 AM
It's quite sad when forcing the legislature to take a hard stance on anything guarantees you to lose. I say that as sad for the state of the country rather than sad for the prospects of any political party. We're clearly at the point where the people are voting themselves the treasury and noone seems concerned.

And Ron Paul fans can bite me as that clown hasn't and still isn't truly interested in winning the nomination. He's just using the publicity.

Its quite sad when a state legislature needs to take rights away from its citizens instead of negotiating strongly, in good faith, and balancing their budgets through the correct means (reducing ancillary spending and increasing taxes).

You're arguing that our government should be allowed to operate as the largest monopoly in the nation, effectively engaging in price fixing for all their employee's services as opposed to those government bodies simply negotiating strongly and logically.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 08:37 AM
Its quite sad when a state legislature needs to take rights away from its citizens instead of negotiating strongly, in good faith, and balancing their budgets through the correct means (reducing ancillary spending and increasing taxes).

You're arguing that our government should be allowed to operate as the largest monopoly in the nation, effectively engaging in price fixing for all their employee's services as opposed to those government bodies simply negotiating strongly and logically.

What monopoly would the government have? You've apparently made up a new usage of the word so you have to define it, maybe.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 08:38 AM
LOL

I don't see that loser's messages anymore but he took his stupidity to the extreme there. Ds weren't calling for the closing of Gitmo? ROFL! Then why was it such an important part of Obama's campaign pledges?

Yeah, sad when people can revise history in their own minds just to support their guy and then lament other people using 'boogeymen'

Even sadder.. as shown in those poll numbers, when vast swaths of people literally change what they believe about things in order to support the person in power. Dangerous when you think about it.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 08:44 AM
Yeah, sad when people can revise history in their own minds just to support their guy and then lament other people using 'boogeymen'

Even sadder.. as shown in those poll numbers, when vast swaths of people literally change what they believe about things in order to support the person in power. Dangerous when you think about it.

I think it's exactly the opposite, personally. I think Obama and all the followers sincerely believed Gitmo needed to be shut down because of a willingness to jump to conclusions out of ignorance and hatred for the current president. Then, once they actually are forced with the realities of closing, their ignorances are revealed to them and they realize the impracticality of what they were asking before. We've seen it with many things from Obama from raising the taxes on the rich to closing Gitmo to not raising the debt ceiling to...

There's a reason things are done the way they are and it's always the convenience of the outsider to be able to call for radical change. Sometimes others would ideally see it similar but when all the facts are available, see the hurdles in actually doing so.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 08:55 AM
Yeah, sad when people can revise history in their own minds just to support their guy and then lament other people using 'boogeymen'

Even sadder.. as shown in those poll numbers, when vast swaths of people literally change what they believe about things in order to support the person in power. Dangerous when you think about it.

That's because you don't accept the concept of change. Rigid ideologues don't change. Why? Because their outlook is dominated by dogma and the dogma does not change, regardless of what happens on the ground. That was the issue with Bush and the neocons.

Why have Americans changed their opinions about Obama's terrorism policy? Because it's working. Bin Laden is dead. Al Queda is decimated. Technology works just as well, or better than boots on the ground. I expect the GITMO numbers have changed because movement (talk about trials and releases) is starting to happen and Obama is getting the benefit of the doubt there. Why? Because when he talked about moving prisoners to federal prisons in America the people went ape****. No doubt the pull out of Iraq troops also has something to do with it.

Will Bush's neocon Iraq policy work? Probably not. Already we are realizing that a massive embassy plopped down in the middle of Baghdad from which we can operate the levers in the region is untenable. That policy is also changing. As the policy changes, peoples' opinions change as well. Obama is taking Bush's **** and turning it into compost. Better than nothing.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 09:12 AM
That's because you don't accept the concept of change. Rigid ideologues don't change. Why? Because their outlook is dominated by dogma and the dogma does not change, regardless of what happens on the ground. That was the issue with Bush and the neocons.

It's easy to exchange one form of rigidness for another however. In some ways being rigid in regards to ideas is being better than being rigid in believing whatever you're told by your team's leadership.

Why have Americans changed their opinions about Obama's terrorism policy? Because it's working. Bin Laden is dead. Al Queda is decimated. Technology works just as well, or better than boots on the ground. I expect the GITMO numbers have changed because movement (talk about trials and releases) is starting to happen and Obama is getting the benefit of the doubt there. Why? Because when he talked about moving prisoners to federal prisons in America the people went ape****. No doubt the pull out of Iraq troops also has something to do with it.

The reason you see any kind of movement is because you have greater consensus now. With Bush, Democrats could engage in the "Close Gitmo" pipe dream, while realists realized it was unworkable. Then Democrats were forced to take the reigns and had to say "Oh crap, this is unworkable" Guess we'll have to go with plan B, which is to do what Bush planned to do. Funniest part? There are lawyers working for the Obama admin now who were actively suing to stop Bush from doing with military tribunals what Obama is now doing himself. All that was accomplished was delay of 'due process' You follow up by giving the credit to the people who were gumming up the works.

Will Bush's neocon Iraq policy work? Probably not. Already we are realizing that a massive embassy plopped down in the middle of Baghdad from which we can operate the levers in the region is untenable. That policy is also changing. As the policy changes, peoples' opinions change as well. Obama is taking Bush's **** and turning it into compost. Better than nothing.

It may not work. In the grand scheme, it was probably a mistake. But in the long run it may end up better than say Egypt or Libya. Or even Afghanistan. Any time you watch a regime fall in that part of the world, what comes next is a huge question mark.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 09:19 AM
That's because you don't accept the concept of change. Rigid ideologues don't change. Why? Because their outlook is dominated by dogma and the dogma does not change, regardless of what happens on the ground. That was the issue with Bush and the neocons.

Why have Americans changed their opinions about Obama's terrorism policy? Because it's working. Bin Laden is dead. Al Queda is decimated. Technology works just as well, or better than boots on the ground. I expect the GITMO numbers have changed because movement (talk about trials and releases) is starting to happen and Obama is getting the benefit of the doubt there. Why? Because when he talked about moving prisoners to federal prisons in America the people went ape****. No doubt the pull out of Iraq troops also has something to do with it.

Will Bush's neocon Iraq policy work? Probably not. Already we are realizing that a massive embassy plopped down in the middle of Baghdad from which we can operate the levers in the region is untenable. That policy is also changing. As the policy changes, peoples' opinions change as well. Obama is taking Bush's **** and turning it into compost. Better than nothing.

So when someone now says we need to cut back on spending and LABF instantly comes in blazing to say "where were you when Bush was...?", you're gonna be willing to defend us and say our opinions have changed and that's a positive? It goes both ways here. The ideologues today are the ones saying social support is the answer as the country's collective head keeps bobbing under water. At some point, you have to do as the flight attendant says and get your own mask on before you can worry about saving others.

And if you have any true beliefs akin to what you posted in terms of Obama making a difference in terror fighting where Bush failed, you're f'ing crazy. Maybe Obama's administration has brought the back-stabbing ways of Pakistan into the public eye but whether fighting a political war with another country is truly a positive can be argued either way. Other than that, Obama has pretty much held fast in Afghanistan (if anything) and tried to deviate from the Iraq drawdown timeline but luckily his attempts failed. Obama is being led militarily by the same people Bush did so pretending there's major policy changes that are attributable to anything but more time is just absolutely false.

Like it or not, militarily, Bush at least blazed a trail. Obama is just trying to stay where others have walked before and hoping not to step on anything. If it hadn't been for getting Osama, we'd probably be talking about all the failures of his Afghanistan mission rather than any successes at all.

And Obama decimated Al Qaeda? ROFL! AQ has been severely fractured since like 2006ish when everything started fragmenting and going under different leadership.

bendog
02-09-2012, 09:19 AM
I think it's exactly the opposite, personally. I think Obama and all the followers sincerely believed Gitmo needed to be shut down because of a willingness to jump to conclusions out of ignorance and hatred for the current president. Then, once they actually are forced with the realities of closing, their ignorances are revealed to them and they realize the impracticality of what they were asking before. We've seen it with many things from Obama from raising the taxes on the rich to closing Gitmo to not raising the debt ceiling to...

There's a reason things are done the way they are and it's always the convenience of the outsider to be able to call for radical change. Sometimes others would ideally see it similar but when all the facts are available, see the hurdles in actually doing so.

I think that's probably fair, though imo there's also a bit of his advisors thinking Holder's desire to try these guys in fed court was a political disaster, and that was what led seeing the hurdles to be too large.

Smiling Assassin27
02-09-2012, 09:27 AM
Large amounts of liberal dems are polling as favorable to drone strikes and leaving GITMO open. After years of ripping W for it, they now are silent. We should've guessed this is how they'd play it after the anti-war demonstrations died down even as Obama was prepping another surge. Not only are these people apparently ok with these ideas on their merits but are cool with widening their scope. Now we go after US citizens with our drones and the left is perfectly fine with it. If W did this, they'd be up in arms.

On this issue, Inconsistency's name is Democrat.

bendog
02-09-2012, 09:32 AM
Obama's a lot of things, but he's never been squeemish on pursuing terrorists in Afgan, before or after the election. However, I think he made a mistake in putting more boots on the ground (Hillary's advice) rather than limiting it to special forces and drones in more targeted strikes (Biden).http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 09:33 AM
Large amounts of liberal dems are polling as favorable to drone strikes and leaving GITMO open. After years of ripping W for it, they now are silent. We should've guessed this is how they'd play it after the anti-war demonstrations died down even as Obama was prepping another surge. Not only are these people apparently ok with these ideas on their merits but are cool with widening their scope. Now we go after US citizens with our drones and the left is perfectly fine with it. If W did this, they'd be up in arms.

On this issue, Inconsistency's name is Democrat.

We've all gone through this. It's why noone should be too quick to jump to a conclusion of which they don't have all the details on or understand the consequences. To say that it's a D thing only is silly even if they have screamed as long and persistently as anyone in recent memory.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 09:34 AM
So when someone now says we need to cut back on spending and LABF instantly comes in blazing to say "where were you when Bush was...?", you're gonna be willing to defend us and say our opinions have changed and that's a positive? It goes both ways here. The ideologues today are the ones saying social support is the answer as the country's collective head keeps bobbing under water. At some point, you have to do as the flight attendant says and get your own mask on before you can worry about saving others.

And if you have any true beliefs akin to what you posted in terms of Obama making a difference in terror fighting where Bush failed, you're f'ing crazy. Maybe Obama's administration has brought the back-stabbing ways of Pakistan into the public eye but whether fighting a political war with another country is truly a positive can be argued either way. Other than that, Obama has pretty much held fast in Afghanistan (if anything) and tried to deviate from the Iraq drawdown timeline but luckily his attempts failed. Obama is being led militarily by the same people Bush did so pretending there's major policy changes that are attributable to anything but more time is just absolutely false.

Like it or not, militarily, Bush at least blazed a trail. Obama is just trying to stay where others have walked before and hoping not to step on anything. If it hadn't been for getting Osama, we'd probably be talking about all the failures of his Afghanistan mission rather than any successes at all.

And Obama decimated Al Qaeda? ROFL! AQ has been severely fractured since like 2006ish when everything started fragmenting and going under different leadership.

No. Obama is treading where he was forced to tread by Bush, as any president who follows another must clean up the former's mess. Bush formulated policy based on ideology. There was no end game. Obama has been forced to play Bush's end game for him. Remember when they asked Rumsfeld about the end game and then you'd get ten minutes of bull**** about "known unknowns?"

As far as your little ROFL! I consider it a purely partisan reaction. No historian worth a **** is going to argue the opposite. Bush had clearly given up on Al Queda, and stated so publicly. Obama has destroyed the leadership structure of Al Queda. Facts are facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/

I still think he made a mistake in Afghanistan. We should have gotten out a long time ago. Our mission was to get Al Queda, not fall into the same trap as the Soviets, fighting the Taliban (V.C.?) forever in order to stabilize the country. Many an empire has wasted its blood and treasure trying to stabilize that ****hole. The problem is, it's full of medieval troglodytes. If you can fix that, you have a chance.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 09:35 AM
I think it's exactly the opposite, personally. I think Obama and all the followers sincerely believed Gitmo needed to be shut down because of a willingness to jump to conclusions out of ignorance and hatred for the current president. Then, once they actually are forced with the realities of closing, their ignorances are revealed to them and they realize the impracticality of what they were asking before. We've seen it with many things from Obama from raising the taxes on the rich to closing Gitmo to not raising the debt ceiling to..

I'd like to believe this. But then you look at how willing they were to turn a blind eye to the al-Awlaki situation, and visualize just how enraged the base would've been had Bush tried the very same thing, and you really have to question that conclusion. In addition we've basically got the military operating in a 'take no prisoner's" mindset because the prisoners are more difficult to deal with politically than the bodies. And they've pretty much openly stated this. Yet from the big Bush-era 'civil libertarians' we don't hear much.

Although there are a few people of conscience who've stayed consistent, to their credit.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 09:40 AM
We've all gone through this. It's why noone should be too quick to jump to a conclusion of which they don't have all the details on or understand the consequences. To say that it's a D thing only is silly even if they have screamed as long and persistently as anyone in recent memory.

I wouldn't say it's a D thing. I'd say it's roughly half the population of either party. I just take issue with D's saying that they're any different.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 09:42 AM
Obama's a lot of things, but he's never been squeemish on pursuing terrorists in Afgan, before or after the election. However, I think he made a mistake in putting more boots on the ground (Hillary's advice) rather than limiting it to special forces and drones in more targeted strikes (Biden).http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

After Iraq was invaded, it became way more a priority than Afghanistan. That was a campaign effort by Obama. Afghanistan has way less chance of success and Iraq's influence is much greater to the regional stability around it. Take into consideration the economic impact of stability there and it's not even close.

And drones utility is tied to the type of situation you're dealing with. If your scheme is to kill the top guys, they've always worked well. The problem is that killing leadership rarely has a major impact on a well run organization. Also, the earlier stages of the war couldn't have been fought with drones as it was more focused on settling the situation enough that a government could take hold.

So, ultimately, more attacks are always good as long as you're willing to look past the collateral damage. What we've gained in public support in the US for these attacks, we've probably lost in worldwide support because of our repeated ventures into Pakistan against Pakistan's public orders to stay out. No technique is absolutely better than another.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 09:46 AM
No. Obama is treading where he was forced to tread by Bush, as any president who follows another must clean up the former's mess. Bush formulated policy based on ideology. There was no end game. Obama has been forced to play Bush's end game for him. Remember when they asked Rumsfeld about the end game and then you'd get ten minutes of bull**** about "known unknowns?"

As far as your little ROFL! I consider it a purely partisan reaction. No historian worth a **** is going to argue the opposite. Bush had clearly given up on Al Queda, and stated so publicly. Obama has destroyed the leadership structure of Al Queda. Facts are facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/

I still think he made a mistake in Afghanistan. We should have gotten out a long time ago. Our mission was to get Al Queda, not fall into the same trap as the Soviets, fighting the Taliban (V.C.?) forever in order to stabilize the country. Many an empire has wasted its blood and treasure trying to stabilize that ****hole. The problem is, it's full of medieval troglodytes. If you can fix that, you have a chance.

I think Obama deserves credit for his aggressiveness on some fronts (although I think targeted assassinations of US citizens is a bridge too far)

But you have to realize that Obama has a much freer hand because he doesn't have the knee-jerk political opposition to each action that Bush had. Obama can operate Gitmo without criticism. He can conduct tribunals and nobody cares.

bendog
02-09-2012, 09:49 AM
hey, I'm not trying to say Obama is good or bad on Afghan. Imo, the horse left the barn back when we didn't attack tora bora with boots and every damn bomb we could find. Iraq was simply a clusterfk. But I'm not saying Bush had anything but good intentions. But, overall, if we want positive things to happen in the ME and muslim countries we should appear to not interfering with them beyond allowing them to access our medical and humatarian know how. And that goes to Iran too.

Drek
02-09-2012, 09:51 AM
What monopoly would the government have? You've apparently made up a new usage of the word so you have to define it, maybe.

What would you call it when the state and local governments have exclusive rights to administering law enforcement and fire remediation services? I'd say they've pretty well cornered the market on those services that we all need from time to time. Now given that they are the only outlet for those services (i.e. hold a monopoly on them) isn't it anti-capitalist to then take away collective bargaining power from their employees? People who have chosen a line of work that we willfully let the government hold exclusive domain over still deserve the right to negotiate their wages, otherwise our government can set them as low as they wish and drive away all capable employees, leaving us with a broken service.

Price fixing for government employees is a slippery slope that leads to societal collapse. Better for a state to let their roads crumble and their sewers burst than for them to reduce the quality and capabilities of the human resources they employ. The former is easily remedied through tax reform and a removal of bureaucratic waste, the later is not.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 09:51 AM
No. Obama is treading where he was forced to tread by Bush, as any president who follows another must clean up the former's mess. Bush formulated policy based on ideology. There was no end game. Obama has been forced to play Bush's end game for him. Remember when they asked Rumsfeld about the end game and then you'd get ten minutes of bull**** about "known unknowns?"

As far as your little ROFL! I consider it a purely partisan reaction. No historian worth a **** is going to argue the opposite. Bush had clearly given up on Al Queda, and stated so publicly. Obama has destroyed the leadership structure of Al Queda. Facts are facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/

I still think he made a mistake in Afghanistan. We should have gotten out a long time ago. Our mission was to get Al Queda, not fall into the same trap as the Soviets, fighting the Taliban (V.C.?) forever in order to stabilize the country. Many an empire has wasted its blood and treasure trying to stabilize that ****hole. The problem is, it's full of medieval troglodytes. If you can fix that, you have a chance.

Obama was all radical ideas and change as a candidate. As a president, he's forced to tread where Bush told him to. Either he was a candidate speaking irresponsibly or he's too cowardly to actually take a chance as president to see if his plans succeed.

Nobody that understands war would ever gauge success on the killing of anyone because they hold a position of authority. Those positions are always relative and filled as quickly as you can kill the last guy. And often times, the people replacing those positions are more adamant in their task because the know the person who was there before was targeted so they may not have much time to accomplish their mission. Cutting off the head of the snake is a tactic better implemented during the crusades than in the war on terror.

That we should've closed up shop in Afghanistan long before now is something we can agree on.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 09:51 AM
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/singleton/

Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.

Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it:

Note that's Glenn f'ing Greenwald. Who I often disagree with, but at least deserves credit for adherence to principle. Or I guess as others put it, his "rigidity"

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 09:55 AM
I think Obama deserves credit for his aggressiveness on some fronts (although I think targeted assassinations of US citizens is a bridge too far)

But you have to realize that Obama has a much freer hand because he doesn't have the knee-jerk political opposition to each action that Bush had. Obama can operate Gitmo without criticism. He can conduct tribunals and nobody cares.

Given the fact that Bush never gave a damn about the reaction to anything he did, and went ahead and did anything he wanted, whenever he wanted, it's a moot point.

Don't forget, Bush had a stranglehold on the press. If you wrote anything he didn't like, you were off the press corps and off the plane. Hell, if you showed up at one of his public events with the wrong bumper sticker, you were removed and arrested. Bush had the most oppressive presidency I've ever seen.

You guys are trying to rewrite history. It's a fail.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 09:58 AM
What would you call it when the state and local governments have exclusive rights to administering law enforcement and fire remediation services? I'd say they've pretty well cornered the market on those services that we all need from time to time. Now given that they are the only outlet for those services (i.e. hold a monopoly on them) isn't it anti-capitalist to then take away collective bargaining power from their employees? People who have chosen a line of work that we willfully let the government hold exclusive domain over still deserve the right to negotiate their wages, otherwise our government can set them as low as they wish and drive away all capable employees, leaving us with a broken service.

Price fixing for government employees is a slippery slope that leads to societal collapse. Better for a state to let their roads crumble and their sewers burst than for them to reduce the quality and capabilities of the human resources they employ. The former is easily remedied through tax reform and a removal of bureaucratic waste, the later is not.

Problem with this is to the extent you see public utilities as monopolies on service, you'd have to see the unions working those utilities as monopolies of labor.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 09:58 AM
What would you call it when the state and local governments have exclusive rights to administering law enforcement and fire remediation services? I'd say they've pretty well cornered the market on those services that we all need from time to time. Now given that they are the only outlet for those services (i.e. hold a monopoly on them) isn't it anti-capitalist to then take away collective bargaining power from their employees? People who have chosen a line of work that we willfully let the government hold exclusive domain over still deserve the right to negotiate their wages, otherwise our government can set them as low as they wish and drive away all capable employees, leaving us with a broken service.

Price fixing for government employees is a slippery slope that leads to societal collapse. Better for a state to let their roads crumble and their sewers burst than for them to reduce the quality and capabilities of the human resources they employ. The former is easily remedied through tax reform and a removal of bureaucratic waste, the later is not.

Newsflash: There's too many workers and not enough jobs. It's not the problem of the employer if the employee is screaming "I want to work here but they don't pay enough!". Well, I want to be a bouncer at a titty bar but it's not a career.

If the gov't says they're only paying X, you can either work there or not. They have to have workers at some point. If people are willing to work there and accomplish the task at minimum wage, why would you willingly pay double that? The government has a right to be prudent and if they overstep their bounds, people will find other jobs. It's not a monopoly because nobody should be seeing working for the government as the only option. So, no, it's not really like a monopoly at all...

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 10:01 AM
Given the fact that Bush never gave a damn about the reaction to anything he did, and went ahead and did anything he wanted, whenever he wanted, it's a moot point.



GTFO. You don't know how the guy thought in private and what those working for him were suggesting to him. This is as arrogant and stupid a post as we've seen in some time.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:02 AM
Given the fact that Bush never gave a damn about the reaction to anything he did, and went ahead and did anything he wanted, whenever he wanted, it's a moot point.

Please. Every time the guy whispered the words 'military commission' someone would drag him to court.

Why isn't that happening anymore? How's that whole KSM thing coming along? A federal judge even ordered the release of Mohamedou Salahi. Guess what, he's still detained. If he's ever dealt with, it'll be by tribunal.

Funny ain't it. He was taken to federal court. Obama didn't like the answer so he was taken back to detention and set in line for the tribunals you used to assure us were unconstitutional.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 10:05 AM
GTFO. You don't know how the guy thought in private and what those working for him were suggesting to him. This is as arrogant and stupid a post as we've seen in some time.

I didn't know we were talking about his "feelings." I don't know if his feelings were hurt. Judging by his actions, he didn't give a ****.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:06 AM
Newsflash: There's too many workers and not enough jobs. It's not the problem of the employer if the employee is screaming "I want to work here but they don't pay enough!". Well, I want to be a bouncer at a titty bar but it's not a career.

Dude, aim higher. Be the body oil boy. This is America!

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:09 AM
I didn't know we were talking about his "feelings." I don't know if his feelings were hurt. Judging by his actions, he didn't give a ****.

Yeah, it's all about President Trial by Drone Strike. He's the guy who really cares. LOL

alkemical
02-09-2012, 10:09 AM
http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-national/paul-camp-cries-fraud-over-nevada-caucus-results

Paul camp cries fraud over Nevada Caucus results

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:15 AM
Don't forget, Bush had a stranglehold on the press. If you wrote anything he didn't like, you were off the press corps and off the plane. Hell, if you showed up at one of his public events with the wrong bumper sticker, you were removed and arrested. Bush had the most oppressive presidency I've ever seen.

It strikes me as mind-boggling that someone could even believe this.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 10:16 AM
Obama was all radical ideas and change as a candidate. As a president, he's forced to tread where Bush told him to. Either he was a candidate speaking irresponsibly or he's too cowardly to actually take a chance as president to see if his plans succeed.

Nobody that understands war would ever gauge success on the killing of anyone because they hold a position of authority. Those positions are always relative and filled as quickly as you can kill the last guy. And often times, the people replacing those positions are more adamant in their task because the know the person who was there before was targeted so they may not have much time to accomplish their mission. Cutting off the head of the snake is a tactic better implemented during the crusades than in the war on terror.

That we should've closed up shop in Afghanistan long before now is something we can agree on.


Not true at all. History shows that in rigid authoritarian or hierarchical regimes (like we discovered with Japan and Germany) taking out the leaders was a highly effective strategy, especially with the Japanese who foundered if their leaders were knocked off. Knocking off the Al Queda leaders as they popped up in Iraq was very effective. The organization splintered and became far less effective. Knocking off leaders in anti-insurgency warfare is also a highly effective strategy.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 10:18 AM
It strikes me as mind-boggling that someone could even believe this.

I witnessed it. Why shouldn't I believe it?

bendog
02-09-2012, 10:19 AM
Newsflash: There's too many workers and not enough jobs. It's not the problem of the employer if the employee is screaming "I want to work here but they don't pay enough!". Well, I want to be a bouncer at a titty bar but it's not a career.

If the gov't says they're only paying X, you can either work there or not. They have to have workers at some point. If people are willing to work there and accomplish the task at minimum wage, why would you willingly pay double that? The government has a right to be prudent and if they overstep their bounds, people will find other jobs. It's not a monopoly because nobody should be seeing working for the government as the only option. So, no, it's not really like a monopoly at all...

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the real issue isn't pay so much as the effect on the political system. What was going on was state wide unions coming into local school board or board of county supervisors and saying
we want X healthcare and if you don't give it to us, we'll have every govt employee in your district vote for your opponent.

That's a little different from employees having a right to strike, and not allow them to be fired for doing so, so employers would have the incentive to put forth the best wage offer they possibly can. There are problems with that too, and even unions aren't totally against some binding arbitration, and even then, I'm not sure we avoid a situation like GM where managment agreed to contracts they KNEW were not economically sustainable 20-30 years down the road but the option was to shut down shop back then.

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 10:19 AM
Yeah, it's all about President Trial by Drone Strike. He's the guy who really cares. LOL

Yeah. Suddenly, Anwar al-Awlaki is the hero of the Right. Ha!

Go Anwar, martyr of the Tea Party! :rofl:

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:21 AM
More Greenwald (from the article I linked to earlier)

One of the very first non-FISA posts I ever wrote that received substantial attention was this one from January, 2006, entitled “Do Bush Followers have an Ideology”? It examined the way in which the Bush-supporting Right was more like an “authoritarian cult” rather than a political movement because its adherents had no real, fixed political beliefs; instead, I argued, their only animating “principle” was loyalty to their leader, and they would support anything he did no matter how at odds it was with their prior ostensible beliefs. That post was linked to and praised by dozens and dozens of liberal blogs: can you believe what authoritarian followers these conservatives are?, they scoffed in unison. Here was the crux of my argument:

Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush. . . .

People who self-identify as “conservatives” and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because “conservatism” is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as “liberal” is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That “conservatism” has come to mean “loyalty to George Bush” is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. . . . And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

As this post demonstrates, long before Barack Obama achieved any significance on the political scene, I considered blind leader loyalty one of the worst toxins in our political culture: it’s the very antithesis of what a healthy political system requires (and what a healthy mind would produce). One of the reasons I’ve written so much about the complete reversal of progressives on these issues (from pretending to be horrified by them when done under Bush to tolerating them or even supporting them when done by Obama) is precisely because it’s so remarkable to see these authoritarian follower traits manifest so vibrantly in the very same political movement — sophisticated, independent-minded, reality-based progressives — that believes it is above that, and that only primitive conservatives are plagued by such follower-mindlessness

The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years. And progressives who support the views of the majority as expressed by this poll should never be listened to again the next time they want to pretend to oppose civilian slaughter and civil liberties assaults when perpetrated by the next Republican President (it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies).

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:24 AM
Yeah. Suddenly, Anwar al-Awlaki is the hero of the Right. Ha!

Go Anwar, martyr of the Tea Party! :rofl:

Doesn't matter whose hero he is. He's dead. By the hand of those who claimed to care.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:29 AM
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the real issue isn't pay so much as the effect on the political system. What was going on was state wide unions coming into local school board or board of county supervisors and saying
we want X healthcare and if you don't give it to us, we'll have every govt employee in your district vote for your opponent.

That's a little different from employees having a right to strike, and not allow them to be fired for doing so, so employers would have the incentive to put forth the best wage offer they possibly can. There are problems with that too, and even unions aren't totally against some binding arbitration, and even then, I'm not sure we avoid a situation like GM where managment agreed to contracts they KNEW were not economically sustainable 20-30 years down the road but the option was to shut down shop back then.

It's a tough balance when it comes to public sector employees because nobody's fully accountable. If a union overnegotiates in a private company, they risk the competitiveness and future of the company, and by extension their own benefits. If the company dies, they take the hit.

In the public sector, that whole mess becomes someone else's problem. So the name of the game is to get someone to promise you as much as possible. And by the time the true costs become known, the people who made those promises are likely gone and the poor schmuck who just got elected has to figure out how to make good out of ugly.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 10:32 AM
I didn't know we were talking about his "feelings." I don't know if his feelings were hurt. Judging by his actions, he didn't give a ****.

WTF are you talking about? You didn't know we were talking about feelings? That's exactly what you claimed to know here:

Given the fact that Bush never gave a damn about the reaction to anything he did, and went ahead and did anything he wanted, whenever he wanted, it's a moot point.



Knowing whether someone "gave a damn" or not is to know their feelings. You're all over the place here. Get yourself straight and figure out what you're trying to talk about.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:41 AM
WTF are you talking about? You didn't know we were talking about feelings? That's exactly what you claimed to know here:



Knowing whether someone "gave a damn" or not is to know their feelings. You're all over the place here. Get yourself straight and figure out what you're trying to talk about.

He's calling HQ to figure out what he should think. His thinking is very flexible that way. Not rigid at all. :)

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 10:55 AM
WTF are you talking about? You didn't know we were talking about feelings? That's exactly what you claimed to know here:



Knowing whether someone "gave a damn" or not is to know their feelings. You're all over the place here. Get yourself straight and figure out what you're trying to talk about.

I hate it when I have to explain simple phrases to people who I presume know better, but are using the nitpicking to deflect away from their earlier gaffes, for example, making the ridiculous argument that, "Nobody that understands war would ever gauge success on the killing of anyone because they hold a position of authority."

Saying, somebody "doesn't give a damn" is idiomatic speech. Like, "George Bush didn't give a damn about terrorism until 911 happened." The phrase doesn't purport to know Bush's actual feelings, but is based on his showing complete disregard for the topic, despite numerous warnings, prior to that major attack. In other words, the presumption is gleaned from his actions.

Of course, afterwards Bush claimed that no terrorist attacks happened on his watch and he was proud of what a great job he did protecting America. So, you could say he "didn't give a damn" about the truth, given that the worst attack in history happened on his watch. Or how about when he flew onto a carrier (in a flight suit and everything) and stood under that banner claiming "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, a war that would go on for years afterwards? You could say he "didn't give a damn" about historical accuracy. Or how about when he was stumbling around drunk at the Olympics in China? You could say he "didn't give a damn" about the dignity of the office of POTUS.

See how that works?

Drop by any time if you need more lessons. ;D

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 10:58 AM
Drop by any time if you need more lessons. ;D

No thanks. I never much cared for tap dancing. :)

IdahoBronco7
02-09-2012, 11:11 AM
Do I have to read all 1100 posts before I can figure out what the hell is going on in here ?

Spider
02-09-2012, 11:25 AM
Do I have to read all 1100 posts before I can figure out what the hell is going on in here ?

Hilarious! no here are some cliff notes ......
your side bad , no your side bad
Spider: anyone that doesnt make 250 K a year is a fool to vote republican .......

bendog
02-09-2012, 11:35 AM
Jmo but Bushii sort of went through three phases. 1. pushing tax and money to faith based and education measures that didn't have much public support, or opposition, by very heavy handed treatment of congressen even in his own party. Threatening Jeffords' milk subsidies was ... astoundingly ungentlemanly. 2. pushing public opinion to support his invasion of Iraq. Only the most ideological folks still maintain he wasn't outright lying. 3. After his invasion went awry, and we became qWagmired with thousands dead and tens of thousands families destroyed by soldiers being maimed, public opinion was no longer something he had to consider.

But, he's done.

Obama has pleasantly surprised me with his tencacity in killing terrorists, and he boldly has gone where Bushii feared to go, and who can tell what that will mean for pakistan. The crazy bastards were killing their own politicans even before Obama lit up bin laden, so carrots may not be very useful. I doubt seriously that Romney has those stones. And Obama seems to want out of Afganistan, so its not like Romney is the "peace candidate."

We've got 30-40% of gopers in the House who would rather default on the debt and/or terminate soc sec rather than raising a dime of taxes. The dims who will be a minority in the senate and probably the house only want to agree to spending cuts that are pretty illusory, though Obama proposed pushing them further. And a bare majority of gopers, who don't have the numbers to pass **** by themselves, with an interest in really getting something done.

Who can best deal with that steaming pile of horse ****? Obama or Romney.

24champ
02-09-2012, 12:04 PM
24, you have to be concerned about the problems your boy Mitt seems to be having in caucus states and also the intensity/turnout gap in states he does well in vis a vis the other candidates. Some of those turnout figures were awful yesterday. It will be very difficult for Mitt to defeat Obama if he can't energize GOP voters to show up.

He needs a very strong showing in Arizona.

I'm not concerned. I left the party in 2007, and they (Republicans) still don't get it. :giggle:

I just find it amazing that the GOP continues to reject candidates that are best suited to handle the number one issue in this election cycle (by a very large margin I might add) of the economy and vote in favor of those that are strong on social issues. Roh touched on this a few posts earlier. Huntsman did poor in the primaries, why? Because of his stance on some social issues. Jon had a great track record as Governor and spoke like he knew the economy. Ron Paul doesn't pander to the religious power brokers, so people in that party aren't going to listen to him. Then there is Romney, who doesn't get the evangelical vote because he is not their type of Christian. If he was their type of Christian, he would have already wrapped this nomination up.

For me the economy is my #1 issue, and my options are down to one at this point. If the GOP wants to nominate a social conservative that doesn't have any sense of fiscal responsibility...then I'm out unless a third party candidate emerges. Make no mistake if it is Rick Santorum, there will be a few people thinking about running on a third ticket. Bloomberg, Ron Paul, Trump etc.

bendog
02-09-2012, 12:20 PM
(applause)

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 12:37 PM
I hate it when I have to explain simple phrases to people who I presume know better, but are using the nitpicking to deflect away from their earlier gaffes, for example, making the ridiculous argument that, "Nobody that understands war would ever gauge success on the killing of anyone because they hold a position of authority."

Saying, somebody "doesn't give a damn" is idiomatic speech. Like, "George Bush didn't give a damn about terrorism until 911 happened." The phrase doesn't purport to know Bush's actual feelings, but is based on his showing complete disregard for the topic, despite numerous warnings, prior to that major attack. In other words, the presumption is gleaned from his actions.

Of course, afterwards Bush claimed that no terrorist attacks happened on his watch and he was proud of what a great job he did protecting America. So, you could say he "didn't give a damn" about the truth, given that the worst attack in history happened on his watch. Or how about when he flew onto a carrier (in a flight suit and everything) and stood under that banner claiming "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, a war that would go on for years afterwards? You could say he "didn't give a damn" about historical accuracy. Or how about when he was stumbling around drunk at the Olympics in China? You could say he "didn't give a damn" about the dignity of the office of POTUS.

See how that works?

Drop by any time if you need more lessons. ;D

The fact that you typed a lot of words doesn't make the concept any less retarded.

"Doesn't give a damn" is a feeling. A person's actions can be indicative of that sentiment but only a fool would judge a president's sentiment based on the actions derived from the input of literally hundreds if not thousands of individuals.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 12:44 PM
Jmo but Bushii sort of went through three phases. 1. pushing tax and money to faith based and education measures that didn't have much public support, or opposition, by very heavy handed treatment of congressen even in his own party. Threatening Jeffords' milk subsidies was ... astoundingly ungentlemanly. 2. pushing public opinion to support his invasion of Iraq. Only the most ideological folks still maintain he wasn't outright lying. 3. After his invasion went awry, and we became qWagmired with thousands dead and tens of thousands families destroyed by soldiers being maimed, public opinion was no longer something he had to consider.

But, he's done.

Obama has pleasantly surprised me with his tencacity in killing terrorists, and he boldly has gone where Bushii feared to go, and who can tell what that will mean for pakistan. The crazy bastards were killing their own politicans even before Obama lit up bin laden, so carrots may not be very useful. I doubt seriously that Romney has those stones. And Obama seems to want out of Afganistan, so its not like Romney is the "peace candidate."

We've got 30-40% of gopers in the House who would rather default on the debt and/or terminate soc sec rather than raising a dime of taxes. The dims who will be a minority in the senate and probably the house only want to agree to spending cuts that are pretty illusory, though Obama proposed pushing them further. And a bare majority of gopers, who don't have the numbers to pass **** by themselves, with an interest in really getting something done.

Who can best deal with that steaming pile of horse ****? Obama or Romney.

At least you make a weak effort to see both sides. You're far from accomplishing it but you should sincerely be commended for trying.

I don't feel like typing a whole book here but 1, if you sincerely think Bush conjured up pure lies then you're ill informed on the topic. 2, I doubt Bush feared much of anything because, by your words, "public opinion was no longer something he had to consider." 3, losing Pakistan's support will cause a lot more problems than killing Osama achieved if Pakistan isn't actually supporting us behind the scenes.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 12:46 PM
I'm not concerned. I left the party in 2007, and they (Republicans) still don't get it. :giggle:

I just find it amazing that the GOP continues to reject candidates that are best suited to handle the number one issue in this election cycle (by a very large margin I might add) of the economy and vote in favor of those that are strong on social issues. Roh touched on this a few posts earlier. Huntsman did poor in the primaries, why? Because of his stance on some social issues. Jon had a great track record as Governor and spoke like he knew the economy. Ron Paul doesn't pander to the religious power brokers, so people in that party aren't going to listen to him. Then there is Romney, who doesn't get the evangelical vote because he is not their type of Christian. If he was their type of Christian, he would have already wrapped this nomination up.

For me the economy is my #1 issue, and my options are down to one at this point. If the GOP wants to nominate a social conservative that doesn't have any sense of fiscal responsibility...then I'm out unless a third party candidate emerges. Make no mistake if it is Rick Santorum, there will be a few people thinking about running on a third ticket. Bloomberg, Ron Paul, Trump etc.

Yeah, that's exactly the reason they don't support Paul. Uhh

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 12:47 PM
Do I have to read all 1100 posts before I can figure out what the hell is going on in here ?

Every. Single. One.

We'll post the link to the quiz after you do.

lolcopter
02-09-2012, 12:49 PM
If I voted, which I don't, it would be for Ron Paul

Republicans are retarded and are probably going to find a way to blow this cakewalk of an election. Politics suck

/response

bendog
02-09-2012, 12:53 PM
At least you make a weak effort to see both sides. You're far from accomplishing it but you should sincerely be commended for trying.

I don't feel like typing a whole book here but 1, if you sincerely think Bush conjured up pure lies then you're ill informed on the topic. 2, I doubt Bush feared much of anything because, by your words, "public opinion was no longer something he had to consider." 3, losing Pakistan's support will cause a lot more problems than killing Osama achieved if Pakistan isn't actually supporting us behind the scenes.

He lied. It's that simple. but his motives were pure. And FDR lied, and Ike lied, and LBJ lied, and Nixon lied, and Reagan lied .... and I'm sure Slick lied but probably not about military stuff, and I don't think anyone directly offered to kill bin laden for us, and we sure as hell didn't want him. Though possibly the Sudan would have detained him long enough for the CIA to put a bullet in his head.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 12:53 PM
If I voted, which I don't, it would be for Ron Paul

Republicans are retarded and are probably going to find a way to blow this cakewalk of an election. Politics suck

/response

It was well known that there were no quality candidates after the last election and the hardcore Rs kept saying one would emerge just because it's how the Ds did. It's safe to say at this point that one hasn't and isn't and now they're left with yesterday's leftovers. It sucks but I guess you can't just pull a quality candidate out of a hat. It only makes it worse since there's so many different types of people hanging out under the conservative umbrella.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 12:57 PM
He lied. It's that simple. but his motives were pure. And FDR lied, and Ike lied, and LBJ lied, and Nixon lied, and Reagan lied .... and I'm sure Slick lied but probably not about military stuff, and I don't think anyone directly offered to kill bin laden for us, and we sure as hell didn't want him. Though possibly the Sudan would have detained him long enough for the CIA to put a bullet in his head.

Sure. All that crap about mobile WMD labs, about Saddam restarting his programs, etc were conjured up on Bush's whiteboard. Heck, I bet he told Saddam to keep kicking out the inspectors just for more ammo. Surely the inspectors that said Saddam wasn't necessarily hiding anything but definitely wasn't being honest with them... they were Bush's helpers, too, right?

I'll buy that he saw what he wanted to see. I'll buy that we were all ready to take the wrath on the Middle East after 9/11. I'll even buy that we supported it as a nation just because we hated Saddam from the first Gulf War. To say Bush made it up, though, is an oversimplification of the facts to serve a purpose.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 01:03 PM
Sure. All that crap about mobile WMD labs, about Saddam restarting his programs, etc were conjured up on Bush's whiteboard. Heck, I bet he told Saddam to keep kicking out the inspectors just for more ammo. Surely the inspectors that said Saddam wasn't necessarily hiding anything but definitely wasn't being honest with them... they were Bush's helpers, too, right?

I'll buy that he saw what he wanted to see. I'll buy that we were all ready to take the wrath on the Middle East after 9/11. I'll even buy that we supported it as a nation just because we hated Saddam from the first Gulf War. To say Bush made it up, though, is an oversimplification of the facts to serve a purpose.

I think the biggest problem in politics today is the complete inability to get DECENT people to run for office. But considering the meat grinder we put candidates through in the public square, it's hard to keep decent people from shying away. I can't blame them.

So instead, mostly only egomaniacs or the otherwise mentally disturbed run for office. :)

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 01:05 PM
Sure. All that crap about mobile WMD labs, about Saddam restarting his programs, etc were conjured up on Bush's whiteboard. Heck, I bet he told Saddam to keep kicking out the inspectors just for more ammo. Surely the inspectors that said Saddam wasn't necessarily hiding anything but definitely wasn't being honest with them... they were Bush's helpers, too, right?

I'll buy that he saw what he wanted to see. I'll buy that we were all ready to take the wrath on the Middle East after 9/11. I'll even buy that we supported it as a nation just because we hated Saddam from the first Gulf War. To say Bush made it up, though, is an oversimplification of the facts to serve a purpose.

Bush was truly an evil genius. Except when he wasn't. :)

Drek
02-09-2012, 01:24 PM
It was well known that there were no quality candidates after the last election and the hardcore Rs kept saying one would emerge just because it's how the Ds did. It's safe to say at this point that one hasn't and isn't and now they're left with yesterday's leftovers. It sucks but I guess you can't just pull a quality candidate out of a hat. It only makes it worse since there's so many different types of people hanging out under the conservative umbrella.

A good candidate did emerge. His name was Jon Huntsman. He then said he believed in evolution and climate change. Then no one voted for him in the primaries.

If someone constructed a republican candidate in a vacuum you wouldn't be able to dream up someone as ideal as Huntsman. He was a Reagan staffer. He's been an ambassador twice, first to Singapore when he became the youngest foreign ambassador in over 100 years and second to China, our biggest economic rival. His first public election he won in an absolute landslide (57.7% of the vote). His second he turned into an absolute laugher (77.7%). That led to him spending ~6 years as Utah's governor where his state grossly outpaced the national average in job creation, set up incredibly friendly corporate tax structures, and put through the largest school voucher system in the nation. During his four years his approval rating was constantly in the high 80's, even occasionally in the low 90's. He left office early to become ambassador to China and his lieutenant governor turned his short service into a landslide victory himself in 2010.

So lets review:
Strong foreign policy, including extensive experience with our biggest economic rival.
Successful job creator.
Supports alternatives to the public school system.
Overhauled Utah's tax system with great success.

He does everything the economically conservative wing of the party have been crying for. Yet no one supported him. Why?

The GOP rejects their best candidates.

Spider
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
A good candidate did emerge. His name was Jon Huntsman. He then said he believed in evolution and climate change. Then no one voted for him in the primaries.

If someone constructed a republican candidate in a vacuum you wouldn't be able to dream up someone as ideal as Huntsman. He was a Reagan staffer. He's been an ambassador twice, first to Singapore when he became the youngest foreign ambassador in over 100 years and second to China, our biggest economic rival. His first public election he won in an absolute landslide (57.7% of the vote). His second he turned into an absolute laugher (77.7%). That led to him spending ~6 years as Utah's governor where his state grossly outpaced the national average in job creation, set up incredibly friendly corporate tax structures, and put through the largest school voucher system in the nation. During his four years his approval rating was constantly in the high 80's, even occasionally in the low 90's. He left office early to become ambassador to China and his lieutenant governor turned his short service into a landslide victory himself in 2010.

So lets review:
Strong foreign policy, including extensive experience with our biggest economic rival.
Successful job creator.
Supports alternatives to the public school system.
Overhauled Utah's tax system with great success.

He does everything the economically conservative wing of the party have been crying for. Yet no one supported him. Why?

The GOP rejects their best candidates.

I agree if anyone could have won over the indy vote and blue dog dems , it was huntsman ,But he didnt get the rush Limbaugh stamp of approval so he was rejected like a fat lady in a bikini ......

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 01:36 PM
A good candidate did emerge. His name was Jon Huntsman. He then said he believed in evolution and climate change. Then no one voted for him in the primaries.

If someone constructed a republican candidate in a vacuum you wouldn't be able to dream up someone as ideal as Huntsman. He was a Reagan staffer. He's been an ambassador twice, first to Singapore when he became the youngest foreign ambassador in over 100 years and second to China, our biggest economic rival. His first public election he won in an absolute landslide (57.7% of the vote). His second he turned into an absolute laugher (77.7%). That led to him spending ~6 years as Utah's governor where his state grossly outpaced the national average in job creation, set up incredibly friendly corporate tax structures, and put through the largest school voucher system in the nation. During his four years his approval rating was constantly in the high 80's, even occasionally in the low 90's. He left office early to become ambassador to China and his lieutenant governor turned his short service into a landslide victory himself in 2010.

So lets review:
Strong foreign policy, including extensive experience with our biggest economic rival.
Successful job creator.
Supports alternatives to the public school system.
Overhauled Utah's tax system with great success.

He does everything the economically conservative wing of the party have been crying for. Yet no one supported him. Why?

The GOP rejects their best candidates.

Huntsman's #1 mistake was running as a moderate in a party primary. Obama won in 2008 by flanking Hillary's left. He only moderated when it was general-election time. You don't win primaries from the center. Which may be another flaw in our system. But it is what it is.

Drek
02-09-2012, 01:48 PM
Huntsman's #1 mistake was running as a moderate in a party primary. Obama won in 2008 by flanking Hillary's left. He only moderated when it was general-election time. You don't win primaries from the center. Which may be another flaw in our system. But it is what it is.

Obama was right of Hillary all through the primaries. He's been a moderate democrat his entire history, its a fantasy that he's some kind of far left socialist.

And he won the primary because he out debated Hillary and presented a vision and message that better resonated with the majority of Americans, either side of the isle. That is also why he destroyed McCain. It is also why he'll destroy any of the "doom and gloom" GOPers who will rant and rave about how America is going down the ****ter while Obama talks about a slow rising tide and what he can do with a second term to help that tide rise faster and lift all ships with it.

The fact that the GOP requires its candidates to stake out extreme right wing views in the primary and then run towards the middle in the general is a big reason they're losing enthusiasm. They've chased most of the fiscal/social conservatives off while begging for the moral conservatives to love them.

The ideal republican candidate who would be a fiscal conservative who preaches moral legislation being removed completely from the federal level and given back to the states. That kind of candidate would transform the party and dominate the general election landscape.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 01:53 PM
Obama was right of Hillary all through the primaries. He's been a moderate democrat his entire history, its a fantasy that he's some kind of far left socialist.

Yeah, pretty much totally not true.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html

National Journal is out with its ratings of the votes of the members of the Senate, and it has found that the most liberal senator in 2007 was Barack Obama.

"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate," National Journal notes.

Hillary Clinton was found to be tied as the 16th most liberal senator, after having placed 32nd the previous year. National Journal uses 99 "key Senate votes" to determine its ratings.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 01:59 PM
A good candidate did emerge. His name was Jon Huntsman. He then said he believed in evolution and climate change. Then no one voted for him in the primaries.

If someone constructed a republican candidate in a vacuum you wouldn't be able to dream up someone as ideal as Huntsman. He was a Reagan staffer. He's been an ambassador twice, first to Singapore when he became the youngest foreign ambassador in over 100 years and second to China, our biggest economic rival. His first public election he won in an absolute landslide (57.7% of the vote). His second he turned into an absolute laugher (77.7%). That led to him spending ~6 years as Utah's governor where his state grossly outpaced the national average in job creation, set up incredibly friendly corporate tax structures, and put through the largest school voucher system in the nation. During his four years his approval rating was constantly in the high 80's, even occasionally in the low 90's. He left office early to become ambassador to China and his lieutenant governor turned his short service into a landslide victory himself in 2010.

So lets review:
Strong foreign policy, including extensive experience with our biggest economic rival.
Successful job creator.
Supports alternatives to the public school system.
Overhauled Utah's tax system with great success.

He does everything the economically conservative wing of the party have been crying for. Yet no one supported him. Why?

The GOP rejects their best candidates.

I barely ever heard anything about him. I only know of him very faintly. Obama started with the Dem convention and got his name out for an entire term before he ran. Huntsman popped up outta the blue for me and was gone as quickly as he appeared.

He might be a good candidate but he didn't do what he should have or we'd know more about him.

bendog
02-09-2012, 02:04 PM
Bush lied when he insisted Saddam still posed a womd threat after Blix and el Baradi concluded there were no ongoing programs. Powell and Weinberger both stated that there were mulitple justifications to invade, but the only legal justification all agreed upon was if Saddam had womd that posed a legit threat to his neighbors (or us) invasion was legal. Bushii pushed ahead with the invasion for well intentioned motives that assumed the Iraqis would move quickly to form a democratic unity govt. Had he been right, no one would have cared that he decieved Americans that there was still a danger from Saddam.

But he's done. However, the effect was that Obama was elected. Hillary never recovered from having supported the intial war resolution, and more importantly, for no having the courage to stand with Obama in the spring of the invasion and publically oppose it.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 02:07 PM
a womd threat

Not familiar with that. Is that a Planned Parenthood term? :)

bendog
02-09-2012, 02:13 PM
I think they told you what Huntsmen didn't do. He believed in global warming. And he rejected Norquist's requirement that he oppose any tax increase because he advocated eliminating all tax deductions in favor of lower rates. Boehner tried agreeing to a milder version of that, and norquist and the teaparty handed him his own ass.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/08/jon-huntsmans.html

Because your party has been taken over by tools of the top .5% and religious nuts, you're stuck with a flip flopper, a hypocritical philandering old fat man, a religious nut who is personally corrupt and a Texas bed bug who is sort of charming but has ideas that scare the living **** out of people. And, most likely, we'll be stuck with four more years of obama.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 02:19 PM
I think they told you what Huntsmen didn't do. He believed in global warming. And he rejected Norquist's requirement that he oppose any tax increase because he advocated eliminating all tax deductions in favor of lower rates. Boehner tried agreeing to a milder version of that, and norquist and the teaparty handed him his own ass.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/08/jon-huntsmans.html

Because your party has been taken over by tools of the top .5% and religious nuts, you're stuck with a flip flopper, a hypocritical philandering old fat man, a religious nut who is personally corrupt and a Texas bed bug who is sort of charming but has ideas that scare the living **** out of people. And, most likely, we'll be stuck with four more years of obama.

You do remember that during primary season Obama was going to leave Iraq within a year, close gitmo, ban lobbyists from the admin, oppose a health care mandate, end no-bid contracts, cut the deficit, allow drug imports, etc etc etc.

Winning primaries means running away from the center. Unless you're already there. But then you'll have a hard time winning the general.

24champ
02-09-2012, 02:20 PM
Yeah, that's exactly the reason they don't support Paul. Uhh

Ron Paul is pro prostitution, gambling, and for weed. That'll win over the Palin wing of the party. Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 02:22 PM
Ron Paul is pro prostitution, gambling, and for weed. That'll win over the Palin wing of the party. Hilarious!

Also wants to banish the Fed and calls social security unconstitutional.

Sounds like a guy who can get 51% of the vote. :)

Rohirrim
02-09-2012, 02:39 PM
The fact that you typed a lot of words doesn't make the concept any less retarded.



What a masterful rebuttal.

razorwire77
02-09-2012, 03:08 PM
I usually stay out of political discussion on my football forums, but this is the way I see it.

Huntsman was the only Republican in the primaries that I think could have put together a coalition of voters to beat Obama in a general. His campaign lacked momentum, plus the organization and Super-Pac $$$ to compete.

Mitt's likability issues, plus a certain element of southern evangelicals wariness of Mormons, plus his flip-flop label = relatively close loss to Obama. The question is will the evangelical dislike of Obama trump the wariness of Mitt in the general enough for them to come out. I imagine we'll see a pretty light turnout.

Rick Santorum, solid red meat candidate for the far right. Way too far right on social issues to win a general = Barry Goldwater esque type loss. He'll never get the nomination.

Newt = Negatives are too high. His primary financial supporter is done bankrolling him, I think he'll stay in until Super Tuesday, but he's DOA.

Ron Paul - Probably the most likely candidate to break the status-quo (out of both parties), but his ideas don't fit into the two-party, red/blue metric that most people are stuck in. There is also the Ron Paul Newsletter thing that will continue to be brought up over and over again. Would do surprisingly well as a 3rd Party candidate. Ross Perot type well.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Bush lied when he insisted Saddam still posed a womd threat after Blix and el Baradi concluded there were no ongoing programs. Powell and Weinberger both stated that there were mulitple justifications to invade, but the only legal justification all agreed upon was if Saddam had womd that posed a legit threat to his neighbors (or us) invasion was legal. Bushii pushed ahead with the invasion for well intentioned motives that assumed the Iraqis would move quickly to form a democratic unity govt. Had he been right, no one would have cared that he decieved Americans that there was still a danger from Saddam.

But he's done. However, the effect was that Obama was elected. Hillary never recovered from having supported the intial war resolution, and more importantly, for no having the courage to stand with Obama in the spring of the invasion and publically oppose it.

Here's a wiki clip as an example of why a person is silly to peg Bush as an outright liar:

October - In October 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Iraq had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs.)[7] On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell presented further evidence in his Iraqi WMD program presentation to the UN Security Council that UAVs were ready to be launched against the U.S. At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the US military and intelligence community as to whether conclusions about Iraqi UAVs were accurate.[8] The U.S. Air Force agency most familiar with UAVs denied that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability, saying the few they had were designed for surveillance and intended for reconnaissance.[9] In fact, Iraq's UAV fleet was never deployed and consisted of a handful of outdated 24.5-foot (7.5 m) wingspan drones with no room for more than a camera and video recorder, and no offensive capability.[10] Despite this controversy, the Senate voted to approve the Joint Resolution on October 11, 2002 providing the Bush Administration with the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law.

At what point here did Bush single handedly take charge of the invasion and lie to make everyone go along with him?

Cito Pelon
02-09-2012, 07:12 PM
Obama was all radical ideas and change as a candidate. As a president, he's forced to tread where Bush told him to. Either he was a candidate speaking irresponsibly or he's too cowardly to actually take a chance as president to see if his plans succeed.

Nobody that understands war would ever gauge success on the killing of anyone because they hold a position of authority. Those positions are always relative and filled as quickly as you can kill the last guy. And often times, the people replacing those positions are more adamant in their task because the know the person who was there before was targeted so they may not have much time to accomplish their mission. Cutting off the head of the snake is a tactic better implemented during the crusades than in the war on terror.

That we should've closed up shop in Afghanistan long before now is something we can agree on.

Nah, you kill the officers as fast as you can. That's a basic.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 07:28 PM
Nah, you kill the officers as fast as you can. That's a basic.

Sure. If by officers you mean traditional warfare.

I just looked back at the quote and I omitted details. That tactic's uselessness was intended to be referring to the war on terror. Maybe I thought it was contextually obvious but I guess it wasn't.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2012, 07:32 PM
Here's a wiki clip as an example of why a person is silly to peg Bush as an outright liar:

October - In October 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Iraq had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs.)[7] On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell presented further evidence in his Iraqi WMD program presentation to the UN Security Council that UAVs were ready to be launched against the U.S. At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the US military and intelligence community as to whether conclusions about Iraqi UAVs were accurate.[8] The U.S. Air Force agency most familiar with UAVs denied that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability, saying the few they had were designed for surveillance and intended for reconnaissance.[9] In fact, Iraq's UAV fleet was never deployed and consisted of a handful of outdated 24.5-foot (7.5 m) wingspan drones with no room for more than a camera and video recorder, and no offensive capability.[10] Despite this controversy, the Senate voted to approve the Joint Resolution on October 11, 2002 providing the Bush Administration with the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law.

At what point here did Bush single handedly take charge of the invasion and lie to make everyone go along with him?

No, it goes back to 1998 when at a Governors' Conference he tricked Clinton into signing the Iraq Liberation act with a little-known variation of the Big Mac Mind Trick.

Cito Pelon
02-09-2012, 07:32 PM
More Greenwald (from the article I linked to earlier)

"(it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies)."

See, that's the big deal. "Liberals" are the far left wing. Centrists don't mind those policies. There's plenty of centrists that vote Democrat and try to marginalize the far left wing at the same time. I'm big on marginalizing/neutralizing both wings, either Far Right or Far Left.

That One Guy
02-09-2012, 07:39 PM
"(it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies)."

See, that's the big deal. "Liberals" are the far left wing. Centrists don't mind those policies. There's plenty of centrists that vote Democrat and try to marginalize the far left wing at the same time. I'm big on marginalizing/neutralizing both wings, either Far Right or Far Left.

It is my completely baseless opinion that the far left are much more likely to vote than the far right. That gives the far left more influence. Also, a far left person is still going to vote for the D, it seems, whereas the conservatives seem more likely to go 3rd party (read: throw away their vote).

Cito Pelon
02-09-2012, 07:50 PM
Sure. If by officers you mean traditional warfare.

I just looked back at the quote and I omitted details. That tactic's uselessness was intended to be referring to the war on terror. Maybe I thought it was contextually obvious but I guess it wasn't.

I know what you meant.

OK, I'll say you take out the leaders every chance you can, that's a basic of warfare. Whether they be field leaders or political leaders.

Cito Pelon
02-09-2012, 08:14 PM
It is my completely baseless opinion that the far left are much more likely to vote than the far right. That gives the far left more influence. Also, a far left person is still going to vote for the D, it seems, whereas the conservatives seem more likely to go 3rd party (read: throw away their vote).

My opinion is both far wings have too much influence. But that's how it's always been in history, it's been a constant battle to neutralize the wing nutcases.

Drek
02-10-2012, 03:49 AM
Yeah, pretty much totally not true.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html

If you actually checked the article you linked you would see that the standard you're using is a voting track record where they were only separated by 10 votes. If you'd dig a little deeper you might recall that those 10 votes were entirely relegated to the war efforts in the middle east, classification of terrorist groups, etc..

Just because every single republican will vote to play world police except Ron Paul doesn't mean a dem who votes the same is "moderate". Just that they're full of **** too.

Kinda like campaign finance reform. Just because several members of the republican party don't want to see our political system get further ass ****ed by special interests doesn't make them the most far left people in the part. They're just not complete douche bags.

Clinton proposed a more heavily federalized version of health care than Obama did and that was one of the key talking points in their primary. Obama actually spoke out on behalf of state's rights multiple times during the primary, something you'd never catch Clinton doing. Those are what the GOP claims to espouse, reduction in federal intervention. Obama spoke more to that than Clinton did by a large margin. Not to mention he's obviously much more of a moral conservative than Clinton.

I barely ever heard anything about him. I only know of him very faintly. Obama started with the Dem convention and got his name out for an entire term before he ran. Huntsman popped up outta the blue for me and was gone as quickly as he appeared.

He might be a good candidate but he didn't do what he should have or we'd know more about him.

Sure, because up until the middle of the summer he was in China serving our nation. As opposed to alternatives like Romney who has been running for POTUS for half a decade now.

Its the obligation of the people to learn about the candidates and vote. If your excuse is "he didn't make himself well enough known" then you've got a problem with enthusaism and interest in the base of the GOP, which will cripple it from ever getting any truly insightful candidates. But then that is something we already knew.

There isn't a lack of strong real conservative candidates to pick from. There is a lack of real conservatives in society period to put those candidates on the ballot. Instead you wind up with two members of the GOP. First, the wealthy "I want the government to give me carte blanche on business deals and pay no taxes but keep a high level infrastructure for me to work within and protect my interests abroad" types who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" but want big government that they just don't have to pay for. Second, the "moral conservatives" who rail against government intrusion in religious and personal freedoms, unless you're a pregnant woman, gay, enjoy recreational narcotics, are of the Islamic faith, or Hispanic. At which point they want massive federal intervention.

Two types of hypocrites are the "base" of the party and people wonder why all the nominees are disgusting hypocrites themselves.

Paladin
02-10-2012, 06:41 AM
Well said, Drek.










(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOGs' nipples.)

Spider
02-10-2012, 07:04 AM
If you actually checked the article you linked you would see that the standard you're using is a voting track record where they were only separated by 10 votes. If you'd dig a little deeper you might recall that those 10 votes were entirely relegated to the war efforts in the middle east, classification of terrorist groups, etc..

Just because every single republican will vote to play world police except Ron Paul doesn't mean a dem who votes the same is "moderate". Just that they're full of **** too.

Kinda like campaign finance reform. Just because several members of the republican party don't want to see our political system get further ass ****ed by special interests doesn't make them the most far left people in the part. They're just not complete douche bags.

Clinton proposed a more heavily federalized version of health care than Obama did and that was one of the key talking points in their primary. Obama actually spoke out on behalf of state's rights multiple times during the primary, something you'd never catch Clinton doing. Those are what the GOP claims to espouse, reduction in federal intervention. Obama spoke more to that than Clinton did by a large margin. Not to mention he's obviously much more of a moral conservative than Clinton.



Sure, because up until the middle of the summer he was in China serving our nation. As opposed to alternatives like Romney who has been running for POTUS for half a decade now.

Its the obligation of the people to learn about the candidates and vote. If your excuse is "he didn't make himself well enough known" then you've got a problem with enthusaism and interest in the base of the GOP, which will cripple it from ever getting any truly insightful candidates. But then that is something we already knew.

There isn't a lack of strong real conservative candidates to pick from. There is a lack of real conservatives in society period to put those candidates on the ballot. Instead you wind up with two members of the GOP. First, the wealthy "I want the government to give me carte blanche on business deals and pay no taxes but keep a high level infrastructure for me to work within and protect my interests abroad" types who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" but want big government that they just don't have to pay for. Second, the "moral conservatives" who rail against government intrusion in religious and personal freedoms, unless you're a pregnant woman, gay, enjoy recreational narcotics, are of the Islamic faith, or Hispanic. At which point they want massive federal intervention.

Two types of hypocrites are the "base" of the party and people wonder why all the nominees are disgusting hypocrites themselves.
^5

Paladin
02-10-2012, 07:07 AM
Difference Lie in the Brain?
By Amie Ninh | April 8, 2011

http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/#ixzz1lzVao49h


"The differences between liberals and conservatives run wide and deep, and a new study suggests they may even be reflected in the very structure of their brains.

In the study, led by Ryota Kanai of the University College London, people who identified themselves as liberals generally had a larger anterior cingulate cortex — a comma-shaped region near the front of the brain that is involved in decision-making. By contrast, those who identified as conservatives had larger amygdalas — almond-shaped structures that are linked with emotional learning and the processing of fear. (More on TIME.com: In Politics, It’s Survival of the Fittest, Literally)

These structural differences, the authors suggest, support previous reports of differences in personality: liberals tend to be better at managing conflicting information, while conservatives are though to be better at recognizing threats, researchers said. “Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual’s political orientation,” said Kanai in a press release. “Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure.”


These studies suggest that there will not be an accomodation between the two extremes anytine soon. The studies suggest reasons why the far right will never "hear" what the other "side" is saying. These current pages absolutely display all the characteristics of these perceptual and personality differences and no amout of arguing or "discussion" is going to change them or anyone's "opinions". This is why Independants, whom I would hypothesize have more perceptual balance than the extremes of eother stripe determine electoral outcomes. It is a good series. I suggest some here read it. It can save you from excessive frustraton....





(This message was typed witout the aid of Mrs. TOGls nipples.)

bowtown
02-10-2012, 07:10 AM
It is my completely baseless opinion that the far left are much more likely to vote than the far right. That gives the far left more influence. Also, a far left person is still going to vote for the D, it seems, whereas the conservatives seem more likely to go 3rd party (read: throw away their vote).

Yes it is totally baseless and it is wrong.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 07:30 AM
This seems like a good place for this:

"You know, Republicans have created this completely fictional president. His name is Barack X. And he's an Islamo-socialist revolutionary who is coming for your guns, raising your taxes, slashing the military, apologizing to other countries, and taking his cues from Europe, or worse yet, Saul Alinsky! And this is how politics has changed. You used to have to run against an actual candidate. But, now, you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/gop-construction-of-a-fic_b_1267435.html

More on the fictional Obama the Right is trying to run against:

A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

The Right Wing did the same thing during the mid-terms when they created a fantasy health care bill (death panels?) that had little to do with reality and then ran against that, instead of the real bill. Maybe that's their strategery, just make **** up and run against it? Of course, sooner or later the electorate wises up and hands you your ass in an election.

Spider
02-10-2012, 07:31 AM
Difference Lie in the Brain?
By Amie Ninh | April 8, 2011

http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/#ixzz1lzVao49h


"The differences between liberals and conservatives run wide and deep, and a new study suggests they may even be reflected in the very structure of their brains.

In the study, led by Ryota Kanai of the University College London, people who identified themselves as liberals generally had a larger anterior cingulate cortex — a comma-shaped region near the front of the brain that is involved in decision-making. By contrast, those who identified as conservatives had larger amygdalas — almond-shaped structures that are linked with emotional learning and the processing of fear. (More on TIME.com: In Politics, It’s Survival of the Fittest, Literally)

These structural differences, the authors suggest, support previous reports of differences in personality: liberals tend to be better at managing conflicting information, while conservatives are though to be better at recognizing threats, researchers said. “Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual’s political orientation,” said Kanai in a press release. “Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure.”


These studies suggest that there will not be an accomodation between the two extremes anytine soon. The studies suggest reasons why the far right will never "hear" what the other "side" is saying. These current pages absolutely display all the characteristics of these perceptual and personality differences and no amout of arguing or "discussion" is going to change them or anyone's "opinions". This is why Independants, whom I would hypothesize have more perceptual balance than the extremes of eother stripe determine electoral outcomes. It is a good series. I suggest some here read it. It can save you from excessive frustraton....





(This message was typed witout the aid of Mrs. TOGls nipples.)

i think it has more to do with the environment you was raised in , I was raised republican , and i was a repub up until Clinton , I also believe there is a huge difference in a western democrat and a blue blood Nor eastern democrat , and a southern Dem , for example , the right to carry and bear arms , I got no problem with that , I dont keep firearms , and for me this is a good thing , cause I do have a minor anger issue , Was all for putting boot to ass in Afghanistan ,Still maintain we should have left Iraq alone , I am for Killing terrorist , Pirates , and people who do the speed limit in the fast lane ....I am for drilling , just not in anwar , to ****ing far away , but lets drill the **** out of Boars tusk , lets drill the **** out of -Piceance Basin. take Wyoming , Gov Dave , one of the most popular governors in recent times , he retired or the republicans never would have held that position .......Gov Dave was a western Democrat

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 07:41 AM
If you actually checked the article you linked you would see that the standard you're using is a voting track record where they were only separated by 10 votes. If you'd dig a little deeper you might recall that those 10 votes were entirely relegated to the war efforts in the middle east, classification of terrorist groups, etc..

Just because every single republican will vote to play world police except Ron Paul doesn't mean a dem who votes the same is "moderate". Just that they're full of **** too.

Kinda like campaign finance reform. Just because several members of the republican party don't want to see our political system get further ass ****ed by special interests doesn't make them the most far left people in the part. They're just not complete douche bags.

Clinton proposed a more heavily federalized version of health care than Obama did and that was one of the key talking points in their primary. Obama actually spoke out on behalf of state's rights multiple times during the primary, something you'd never catch Clinton doing. Those are what the GOP claims to espouse, reduction in federal intervention. Obama spoke more to that than Clinton did by a large margin. Not to mention he's obviously much more of a moral conservative than Clinton.



Sure, because up until the middle of the summer he was in China serving our nation. As opposed to alternatives like Romney who has been running for POTUS for half a decade now.

Its the obligation of the people to learn about the candidates and vote. If your excuse is "he didn't make himself well enough known" then you've got a problem with enthusaism and interest in the base of the GOP, which will cripple it from ever getting any truly insightful candidates. But then that is something we already knew.

There isn't a lack of strong real conservative candidates to pick from. There is a lack of real conservatives in society period to put those candidates on the ballot. Instead you wind up with two members of the GOP. First, the wealthy "I want the government to give me carte blanche on business deals and pay no taxes but keep a high level infrastructure for me to work within and protect my interests abroad" types who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" but want big government that they just don't have to pay for. Second, the "moral conservatives" who rail against government intrusion in religious and personal freedoms, unless you're a pregnant woman, gay, enjoy recreational narcotics, are of the Islamic faith, or Hispanic. At which point they want massive federal intervention.

Two types of hypocrites are the "base" of the party and people wonder why all the nominees are disgusting hypocrites themselves.

First, I (and others) have a different take on the Hillary/Obama health care debate during the primary. Obama was dancing a line between 'health care reform' and many progressives' real health care panacea - single payer. Hillary's individual mandate approach was not, and IS not the favorite of the far left. I've heard many left-wing friends who are fairly unhappy about the prospect of having a gun put to their head to hand money to an 'evil' insurance company.

Obama's approach was basically to not commit to either approach but say non-specific things and give props every now and again to single payer.

It seems different now because Obama eventually ended up on the mandate train once in office. But the mandate is actually a (bad) compromise position between the current ('evil') private insurance model and single payer. Opposing the mandate, while beating Hillary up over it, and avoiding specifics, as Obama did during the primary, was a play to her left.

As to all the Iraq war/WOT hand-ringing, as the articles I already posted help demonstrate... the opposition to all that was more political than principle. Being the anti-Bush on the War on Terror was the name of the game. Hillary hurt herself by being far more pragmatic and realistic about the situation, when she should've been just telling people what they wanted to hear, just like Obama did.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 07:46 AM
This seems like a good place for this:

"You know, Republicans have created this completely fictional president. His name is Barack X. And he's an Islamo-socialist revolutionary who is coming for your guns, raising your taxes, slashing the military, apologizing to other countries, and taking his cues from Europe, or worse yet, Saul Alinsky! And this is how politics has changed. You used to have to run against an actual candidate. But, now, you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/gop-construction-of-a-fic_b_1267435.html

Schweet. We're erecting our own straw effigies now. :)

alkemical
02-10-2012, 07:59 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/beyond-left-and-right/

Beyond Left and Right

Posted by Good German on February 10, 2012

From Al Jazeera:

Are you tired of the old concept of the political left and right?

Arianna Huffington, the co-founder of The Huffington Post, the online home for hundreds of journalists and opinionated celebrities, is.

She tells Al Jazeera: “I don’t see American politcs as a left-right game. I think that in fact when we continue to see it as a left-right game we are having a much harder time laying out the choices for the American people. Caring for the middle class, caring for jobs, wanting to prioritise that – is that a left-wing position? Shouldn’t everybody care about that?… I think we are using these terms in a way which has made this type of national conversation much, much harder to have and which really marginalises issues.”

Born in Greece, Arianna Huffington emigrated to the US where she married former US Congressman Michael Huffington. After their divorce she embarked on her own political career, running for the governorship of California in 2003.

Two years later, she started the Huffington Post, which she sold last year to the internet giant America Online for more than $300m.

Her website draws two per cent of the world’s internet traffic and now she is taking her brand of journalism to Europe…

[continues at Al Jazeera

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 08:19 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/beyond-left-and-right/

Beyond Left and Right

Posted by Good German on February 10, 2012

From Al Jazeera:

Are you tired of the old concept of the political left and right?

Arianna Huffington, the co-founder of The Huffington Post, the online home for hundreds of journalists and opinionated celebrities, is.

She tells Al Jazeera: “I don’t see American politcs as a left-right game. I think that in fact when we continue to see it as a left-right game we are having a much harder time laying out the choices for the American people. Caring for the middle class, caring for jobs, wanting to prioritise that – is that a left-wing position? Shouldn’t everybody care about that?… I think we are using these terms in a way which has made this type of national conversation much, much harder to have and which really marginalises issues.”

Born in Greece, Arianna Huffington emigrated to the US where she married former US Congressman Michael Huffington. After their divorce she embarked on her own political career, running for the governorship of California in 2003.

Two years later, she started the Huffington Post, which she sold last year to the internet giant America Online for more than $300m.

Her website draws two per cent of the world’s internet traffic and now she is taking her brand of journalism to Europe…

[continues at Al Jazeera

That's pretty funny. "Now that I've cashed out my mega-millions made from mega-shilling for both sides, I've decided this isn't a left-right game." :)

Drek
02-10-2012, 08:24 AM
First, I (and others) have a different take on the Hillary/Obama health care debate during the primary. Obama was dancing a line between 'health care reform' and many progressives' real health care panacea - single payer. Hillary's individual mandate approach was not, and IS not the favorite of the far left. I've heard many left-wing friends who are fairly unhappy about the prospect of having a gun put to their head to hand money to an 'evil' insurance company.

Obama's approach was basically to not commit to either approach but say non-specific things and give props every now and again to single payer.

It seems different now because Obama eventually ended up on the mandate train once in office. But the mandate is actually a (bad) compromise position between the current ('evil') private insurance model and single payer. Opposing the mandate, while beating Hillary up over it, and avoiding specifics, as Obama did during the primary, was a play to her left.

As to all the Iraq war/WOT hand-ringing, as the articles I already posted help demonstrate... the opposition to all that was more political than principle. Being the anti-Bush on the War on Terror was the name of the game. Hillary hurt herself by being far more pragmatic and realistic about the situation, when she should've been just telling people what they wanted to hear, just like Obama did.

Its clear to me that you view everything as political and not principle.

Obama wanted a single payer option (gave it up in an attempt to compromise with the GOP) off-set by private industry with a base line "package" for coverage that everyone needed to get, once you had proof of that the federal government had no further involvement. Meanwhile Hillary wanted a mandate of going through private insurance with a massive federal infrastructure to then oversee how they provide coverage. Did you not look at how each of them spelled out their plans? Clinton's was far more "big government" while Obama's was a free market "cover everyone with minimal intervention" plan. Unfortunately the real HC plan he got passed is a very watered down version of his original, as the interstate shopping of plans and single payer option he wanted to help drive down costs were stripped out by the beurocratic system afraid of competition.

Last I checked free market philosophies were supposed to be the domain of the right while big government was the domain of the left.

As for Iraq etc., that was Clinton following the crowd, not making the sensible choice. All of congress and the senate (as well as the POTUS at the time) were swallowing anything intelligence sent them because their sphincters were so puckered in fear of another terrorist attack. Voting out of fear isn't a right or left stance. We'll never know for sure how Obama would have voted in that situation because he wasn't in D.C. at that point (though he claims he would have still voted against it), but you're lying to yourself if you don't think Clinton's record and the record of most democrats Obama was serving with in '08 aren't heavily skewed by their early 2000's blank check voting in favor of WOT initiatives put up by the Bush administration.

All in all there are a few things that Obama is more left on than Clinton, but there is a roughly equal list of things he's further to the right on. They're both incredibly close on the political spectrum and Obama didn't run to the left to get there, its where he was all along. That was further right than almost every other primary candidate, including his VP Joe Biden.

Now since being elected he has been a more moderate (and therefore more right) president, but that is because he's been pushing for compromise. His presidential record is not the record he'd have if he had unilateral control to effect change. The same things he ran on against Hillary are the exact same pillars he ran on against McCain. There was no run to the middle after winning the nomination.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 08:33 AM
Its clear to me that you view everything as political and not principle.

Obama wanted a single payer option (gave it up in an attempt to compromise with the GOP) off-set by private industry with a base line "package" for coverage that everyone needed to get, once you had proof of that the federal government had no further involvement. Meanwhile Hillary wanted a mandate of going through private insurance with a massive federal infrastructure to then oversee how they provide coverage. Did you not look at how each of them spelled out their plans? Clinton's was far more "big government" while Obama's was a free market "cover everyone with minimal intervention" plan

Yes, Hillary's plan was more 'big government' in the sense that Obama's plan wasn't really a plan. It was a way to avoid the issue. He basically said we're going to have 'universal coverage' without ever addressing how that could happen if you don't either force (mandate) or just automatically cover (single payer)

In reality, Obama's 'plan' was vapor. Pointing out that Vapor involves less government doesn't make it conservative. Especially if it's done to avoid the (bad) compromise mandate that many liberals hate.

TonyR
02-10-2012, 08:34 AM
...or worse yet, Saul Alinsky!

LOL This just made me wonder what ever happened to that dramallama clown?!?

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 08:38 AM
As for Iraq etc., that was Clinton following the crowd, not making the sensible choice. All of congress and the senate (as well as the POTUS at the time) were swallowing anything intelligence sent them because their sphincters were so puckered in fear of another terrorist attack. Voting out of fear isn't a right or left stance. We'll never know for sure how Obama would have voted in that situation because he wasn't in D.C. at that point (though he claims he would have still voted against it), but you're lying to yourself if you don't think Clinton's record and the record of most democrats Obama was serving with in '08 aren't heavily skewed by their early 2000's blank check voting in favor of WOT initiatives put up by the Bush administration.\

Let's be honest, it's all following the crowd. The best tool in a politician's kit is to predict where people are going to be and sprint out in front to 'lead' them where they were already planning to go. And to me, you're just reinforcing what I'm saying. Hillary ran the pragmatic 'frontrunner' campaign, where she was more worried about the general election and it's issues than she was about winning her primary. Obama won by promising things during the primary he knew couldn't be delivered if/when he took office. He put together a gameplan to win in the first round of the playoffs. Hillary got caught looking ahead to her Super Bowl opponent.

Go back and look at all his talk during the primaries. Then look at what he did when he took office. It was all fo' sho'. :)

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 08:41 AM
LOL This just made me wonder what ever happened to that dramallama clown?!?

Don't ask. Don't ask. :)

Spider
02-10-2012, 08:42 AM
LOL This just made me wonder what ever happened to that dramallama clown?!?

I hope he is ok ........

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 08:45 AM
Let's be honest, it's all following the crowd. The best tool in a politician's kit is to predict where people are going to be and sprint out in front to 'lead' them where they were already planning to go. And to me, you're just reinforcing what I'm saying. Hillary ran the pragmatic 'frontrunner' campaign, where she was more worried about the general election and it's issues than she was about winning her primary. Obama won by promising things during the primary he knew couldn't be delivered if/when he took office. He put together a gameplan to win in the first round of the playoffs. Hillary got caught looking ahead to her Super Bowl opponent.

Go back and look at all his talk during the primaries. Then look at what he did when he took office. It was all fo' sho'. :)

Obama ran as a centrist. He has governed as a centrist. Remember the Bush campaign? Compassionate conservatism? Absolutely no nation building? Cut the size of government? Reduce spending?

He spent like a drunken sailor and goes down as the biggest nation builder since the Marshall Plan.

TonyR
02-10-2012, 08:52 AM
Polls showing Santorum now leading nationally: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/10/looks_like_theres_a_new_gop_frontrunner.html?utm_s ource=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wi re%29


[T]his isn’t about Rick Santorum who is clearly a 2nd or 3rd tier candidate, it’s showing the depth of Romney’s weakness as a candidate — both as a candidate in this particular political moment and simply as a candidate for office in general.http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/epiphany_2.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Mar shall%29

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 08:57 AM
Polls showing Santorum now leading nationally: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/10/looks_like_theres_a_new_gop_frontrunner.html?utm_s ource=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wi re%29


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/epiphany_2.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Mar shall%29

I still think the real story is the pathetic turnout numbers for these primaries. Santorum is gaining momentum because the numbers are so low and the ones who do turn out are the social fanatics on the Right.

ludo21
02-10-2012, 08:58 AM
Love if Santorum can pull this off.

Id honestly not vote if Romney wins

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 08:59 AM
It would be amazing if the Republicans got to Tampa with Santorum and Romney tied, or even better, Santorum in the lead. It would be the most explosive convention in a hundred years. ;D

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 09:04 AM
Obama ran as a centrist. He has governed as a centrist. Remember the Bush campaign? Compassionate conservatism? Absolutely no nation building? Cut the size of government? Reduce spending?

Obama ran in the GENERAL as a centrist. He ran in the primary left of Hillary. That's the winning formula. For either side. That's part of Mitt's problem. He's making the Hillary mistake. There aren't any candidates strong enough to overtake him based on that alone though.

BroncoInferno
02-10-2012, 09:07 AM
Love if Santorum can pull this off.

Me, too. Obama will win by FDR-like proportions if that lunatic gets the nod.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 09:10 AM
Me, too. Obama will win by FDR-like proportions if that lunatic gets the nod.

Can you imagine if they got to Tampa with Santorum with the delegate lead? The establishment Republicans would launch a delegate seating fight like we haven't seen since the days of TR. There would be blood in the aisles.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 09:13 AM
Can you imagine if they got to Tampa with Santorum with the delegate lead? The establishment Republicans would launch a delegate seating fight like we haven't seen since the days of TR. There would be blood in the aisles.

This talk is just like 2008. Only on the opposite side.

alkemical
02-10-2012, 09:15 AM
That's pretty funny. "Now that I've cashed out my mega-millions made from mega-shilling for both sides, I've decided this isn't a left-right game." :)

Capitalism baby!

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 09:16 AM
Capitalism baby!

True dat.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 09:17 AM
This talk is just like 2008. Only on the opposite side.

So you think Romney should give Santorum a call and offer him the Secretary of State job? ;D

alkemical
02-10-2012, 09:18 AM
True dat.

I loved it when she sold it for that much coin, and then it tanked. It was sort of "punk".

*I personally don't carefor her - but she did a bang up job building it up.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 09:18 AM
It would be amazing if the Republicans got to Tampa with Santorum and Romney tied, or even better, Santorum in the lead. It would be the most explosive convention in a hundred years. ;D

I'm sure this has been posted before. But if Santorum some how pulls this out of his ass, get used to it. You'll be seeing a lot more of it. :)

http://media.reason.com/mc/_ATTIC/Image/santorum.jpg?h=325&w=468

alkemical
02-10-2012, 09:20 AM
If he's so Kick@ss, why did PA not want him back?

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 09:21 AM
So you think Romney should give Santorum a call and offer him the Secretary of State job? ;D

Secretary of State Santorum.. has kind of a ring... ahhh who am I kidding.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 09:23 AM
I'm sure this has been posted before. But if Santorum some how pulls this out of his ass, get used to it. You'll be seeing a lot more of it. :)

http://media.reason.com/mc/_ATTIC/Image/santorum.jpg?h=325&w=468

All I need to know about Santorum is that the people who knew him best, his fellow Pennsylvanians, soundly kicked his ass out of office - the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever.

alkemical
02-10-2012, 09:25 AM
All I need to know about Santorum is that the people who knew him best, his fellow Pennsylvanians, soundly kicked his ass out of office - the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever.

There's a reason for it....He's a slime ball. He was voted the most corrupt Senator of '06, and got destroyed in the election. He showed his real colors then. He defends PORK by stating it's his job to support PORK and get as much PORK as he can for the State.

That's the type of plotitician he is.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 09:26 AM
All I need to know about Santorum is that the people who knew him best, his fellow Pennsylvanians, soundly kicked his ass out of office - the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican senator ever.

Then there's people talking up the fact that he 'might win' the Penn Primary. So he might win his home state in a presidential primary? That's supposed to be promising?

alkemical
02-10-2012, 09:27 AM
Then there's people talking up the fact that he 'might win' the Penn Primary. So he might win his home state in a presidential primary? That's supposed to be promising?

It helps when Clear Channel is giving him chunks of air time locally.

Which is weird, due to whom owns CC.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-10-2012, 09:34 AM
There's a reason for it....He's a slime ball. He was voted the most corrupt Senator of '06, and got destroyed in the election. He showed his real colors then. He defends PORK by stating it's his job to support PORK and get as much PORK as he can for the State.

That's the type of plotitician he is.

Nothing here the average "values voter" isn't willing to overlook (see GeeDubya.)

lonestar
02-10-2012, 09:44 AM
It helps when Clear Channel is giving him chunks of air time locally.

Which is weird, due to whom owns CC.

Was always thinking their is a fair/equal time rule.. I'd guess that somewhere the others got there fair share OR he paid for it..

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 09:45 AM
Santorum usually ignores questions about his ethical lapses. In a letter to the editor to a Philadelphia newspapers, he called the charges by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) “disingenuous innuendo and half-truths.”

“The only half-truth is the Senator’s evasion of the facts,” a former aide to Santorum told Capitol Hill Blue in 2006 when the charges first came to light. “He’s dirty. I’m sorry to have to say that for a man I once worked for and admired but he broke the law.”

Santorum and his wife purchased a $643,361 house in northern Virginia with a $500,000 preferred-rate mortgage from Philadelphia Trust Company, a small private bank that catered to big money investors. Federal Election Commission records show officers of the bank gave maximum allowable contributions totalling $24,000 to Santorum’s campaign and raised even more money through a technique called “bundling,” where a contributor hosts a private event and collects high-dollar donations and turns them over to the campaign in bulk. Such bundling funneled several hundred thousand dollars into Santroum’s campaign war chest.

“Rick always played fast and loose with the rules,” the former aide said. “He felt rules were for ‘little people,’ not him.”
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/42674

bendog
02-10-2012, 09:52 AM
Obama ran as a centrist. He has governed as a centrist. Remember the Bush campaign? Compassionate conservatism? Absolutely no nation building? Cut the size of government? Reduce spending?

He spent like a drunken sailor and goes down as the biggest nation builder since the Marshall Plan.

imo Obama's governed more as an elitist than centrist, but he's certainly not a kenyan marxist socialist secret muslim. I mean he GAVE goldman sacs millions if not billions. What else could these guys ask him to do to prove the charges wrong? lol

That One Guy
02-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Yes it is totally baseless and it is wrong.

I didn't pass it off as a fact at all but what is your logic. Does such a poll exist to make you so sure?

Those that I know that are far right wing are a lot less likely to vote than ANY liberal I know. And my definition of far right is a true embracing of the religion and economics of the right.

alkemical
02-10-2012, 10:38 AM
http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/2/8/10/enhanced-buzz-29344-1328714336-13.jpg

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 10:43 AM
I didn't pass it off as a fact at all but what is your logic. Does such a poll exist to make you so sure?

Those that I know that are far right wing are a lot less likely to vote than ANY liberal I know. And my definition of far right is a true embracing of the religion and economics of the right.

The far right has its own religion?

That One Guy
02-10-2012, 10:50 AM
The far right has its own religion?

They have common religious philosophies just as they have common economic philosophies.

Are you really so ****ing bored that you try to play word games with me?

bendog
02-10-2012, 11:17 AM
It would be amazing if the Republicans got to Tampa with Santorum and Romney tied, or even better, Santorum in the lead. It would be the most explosive convention in a hundred years. ;D

The general election loss might be so bad we'd get to eject them from the party.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 11:27 AM
Santorum usually ignores questions about his ethical lapses. In a letter to the editor to a Philadelphia newspapers, he called the charges by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) “disingenuous innuendo and half-truths.”

“The only half-truth is the Senator’s evasion of the facts,” a former aide to Santorum told Capitol Hill Blue in 2006 when the charges first came to light. “He’s dirty. I’m sorry to have to say that for a man I once worked for and admired but he broke the law.”

Santorum and his wife purchased a $643,361 house in northern Virginia with a $500,000 preferred-rate mortgage from Philadelphia Trust Company, a small private bank that catered to big money investors. Federal Election Commission records show officers of the bank gave maximum allowable contributions totalling $24,000 to Santorum’s campaign and raised even more money through a technique called “bundling,” where a contributor hosts a private event and collects high-dollar donations and turns them over to the campaign in bulk. Such bundling funneled several hundred thousand dollars into Santroum’s campaign war chest.

“Rick always played fast and loose with the rules,” the former aide said. “He felt rules were for ‘little people,’ not him.”
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/42674

This is why you lose what little respect I sometimes have for you Roh. You put this up and call Santorum corrupt, but when I put up information about BO's ties to corruption in how he purchased his Chicago home, it's no big deal.

You are the epitome of a libtard double standard assclown.

alkemical
02-10-2012, 11:44 AM
Was always thinking their is a fair/equal time rule.. I'd guess that somewhere the others got there fair share OR he paid for it..

I don't hear the local AM radio show calling other candidates to talk to them...

Drek
02-10-2012, 11:51 AM
Yes, Hillary's plan was more 'big government' in the sense that Obama's plan wasn't really a plan. It was a way to avoid the issue. He basically said we're going to have 'universal coverage' without ever addressing how that could happen if you don't either force (mandate) or just automatically cover (single payer)

In reality, Obama's 'plan' was vapor. Pointing out that Vapor involves less government doesn't make it conservative. Especially if it's done to avoid the (bad) compromise mandate that many liberals hate.

His plan NOW involves less government than what Hillary was proposing. Hell, his plan NOW has less government involvement than what RICHARD NIXON was pushing during his presidency. So Obama is crazy left but he's less of a "big gubmint" guy than Nixon, the GOP John the Baptist (Reagan = Jesus, FYI)?

Let's be honest, it's all following the crowd. The best tool in a politician's kit is to predict where people are going to be and sprint out in front to 'lead' them where they were already planning to go. And to me, you're just reinforcing what I'm saying. Hillary ran the pragmatic 'frontrunner' campaign, where she was more worried about the general election and it's issues than she was about winning her primary. Obama won by promising things during the primary he knew couldn't be delivered if/when he took office. He put together a gameplan to win in the first round of the playoffs. Hillary got caught looking ahead to her Super Bowl opponent.

Go back and look at all his talk during the primaries. Then look at what he did when he took office. It was all fo' sho'. :)

How he's governed has no relevance though. You said Huntsman needed to go hard right until he won the nom, then run back to the middle for the general, claiming that Obama did the same to beat Hillary. But he didn't. Obama's stances against Hillary were the same as they were against McCain. He never ran back to the middle to win an election. He's come back to the middle because more than being a liberal/lefty/democrat he's a populist and wants to build consensus. He said all of this when he won, before even taking office. As a result he's offered propositions that sit well to the right of his personal views to make it easier for everyone to get on board. That isn't election strategy, that is negotiations and political horse trading.

My single biggest problem with the political debate in this country is that everyone lives in a polarized cloud of delusion. To the far right Obama is this heavy handed socialist soft on foreign policy and quick to spend money. To the far left he's a turncoat who now that he's in office is militaristic, letting the corporations get away free, letting the Bush admin get away free, and not delivering on his campaign promises, 90% of which they have themselves dreamed up and Obama never promised in the first place.

A lack of honesty on what our candidates really are knee caps the political discourse in this country before it can even get off the ground.

alkemical
02-10-2012, 11:55 AM
His plan NOW involves less government than what Hillary was proposing. Hell, his plan NOW has less government involvement than what RICHARD NIXON was pushing during his presidency. So Obama is crazy left but he's less of a "big gubmint" guy than Nixon, the GOP John the Baptist (Reagan = Jesus, FYI)?



How he's governed has no relevance though. You said Huntsman needed to go hard right until he won the nom, then run back to the middle for the general, claiming that Obama did the same to beat Hillary. But he didn't. Obama's stances against Hillary were the same as they were against McCain. He never ran back to the middle to win an election. He's come back to the middle because more than being a liberal/lefty/democrat he's a populist and wants to build consensus. He said all of this when he won, before even taking office. As a result he's offered propositions that sit well to the right of his personal views to make it easier for everyone to get on board. That isn't election strategy, that is negotiations and political horse trading.

My single biggest problem with the political debate in this country is that everyone lives in a polarized cloud of delusion. To the far right Obama is this heavy handed socialist soft on foreign policy and quick to spend money. To the far left he's a turncoat who now that he's in office is militaristic, letting the corporations get away free, letting the Bush admin get away free, and not delivering on his campaign promises, 90% of which they have themselves dreamed up and Obama never promised in the first place.

A lack of honesty on what our candidates really are knee caps the political discourse in this country before it can even get off the ground.

LOL, in some weird way - it's like Obama's pissing everyone off. If that's the case...is he doing the "right thing"? If nobody is happy, in our super-polarized-neoTribes - maybe this is actually the "best".


*This post was made not in support of Obama, but an observation of the state of where we are.

Drek
02-10-2012, 12:01 PM
This is why you lose what little respect I sometimes have for you Roh. You put this up and call Santorum corrupt, but when I put up information about BO's ties to corruption in how he purchased his Chicago home, it's no big deal.

You are the epitome of a libtard double standard assclown.

My problem with Santorum has nothing to do with his mortgage. Anyone who's friend happens to be a bank president or real estate investor will take a sweetheart deal when offered. We know about it here because they're politicians, but do you really think the CEO of Goldman Sachs doesn't have a mortgage that a savings account can't beat on annual interest?

My problem with Santorum is that he's full of ****. He claims government has no place in our lives but then wants to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, gay rights in general, etc.. How does that fly? For a guy who doesn't want the government setting down any regulations on things that involve public health and well being he's incredibly willing to strip away individual rights at a federal level when they conflict with nothing more than his own personal beliefs.

That is hypocrisy at it's purest form. Not a drop of lube whipped into the frothy mix.

Drek
02-10-2012, 12:05 PM
LOL, in some weird way - it's like Obama's pissing everyone off. If that's the case...is he doing the "right thing"? If nobody is happy, in our super-polarized-neoTribes - maybe this is actually the "best".


*This post was made not in support of Obama, but an observation of the state of where we are.

Its true to a point, isn't it? If we could just see the senate, congress, and POTUS reach an agreement on long term balancing of the budget through taxation and entitlement reforms I'd gladly welcome four years of gridlock as we whittle down the national debt and let the market rebuild itself, having now shown enough strength to come off federal life support.

BroncoInferno
02-10-2012, 12:06 PM
This talk is just like 2008. Only on the opposite side.

Whether you like him or not, you have to admit Obama had a lot going for him as a candidate in '08: a lot of charisma, great oratory skills, the "hope/change" slogan and hitting the right vein in his rhetoric to sell that to a lot of people, the chance to make history and elect the first minority president excited a lot of folks. Romney and Santorum have little going for them to get the masses in the middle of the political spectrum excited about them. Romney is robotic and boring, seems uncomfortable on stage a lot of the time, seems wishy-washy....a right-wing John Kerry, if you will. Santorum is simply bat-**** crazy and corrupt, comes off as a pessimist and mean a lot of the time. There is basically nothing comparable about Obama as a candidate and any of the GOPs top contenders.

bendog
02-10-2012, 12:08 PM
I don't see how Obama got anything free or below fair market value. He bought the house for less than the asking price, but if you ever buy a house for the price someone is asking you're paying too much. Then Obama bought a sixth of the land Rezko had bought and paid 1/6 of what rezko paid, which is probably more than the actual value. Obama didn't get a cut rate mortgage, and he didn't get free land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/12/dancing-boys-afghanistan

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

What is was was Obama's patron bought and held land that Obama wanted to add to his yard, and Obama bought it when he got the money. Nixon and BeBe Rebozzo did the same. And the young america foundation paid Nancy Reagan fair value for the ranch, which not only allowed the property to be maintained like a museum but also gave her several million dollars. Obama's a realitively young man who no doubt will make a lot of money when he gets out. But, there are dozens if not hundreds of stories where political benefactors helped pols ... but the key is did they pay fair value. Chris Dodd and Santorum did not, and they paid the price. We pay politicians pretty lightly considering how much money they're handling. People shouldn't get bent out of shape when guys like Jerry Ford cash in when they leave service, or if "friends" help them buy a house that really stretches them. Nixon could have made millions in private business because he'd buy and sell a guy like Romney right off the boat.

The real story on Rezko is how Obama bought into people getting govt loans to build cheap housing and then rent apts to poor people who had Sec. 8 vouchers. I mean Cabrini Green certainly showed that govt shouldn't be managing low income apartments, but the alternative seems to be .... slum lords.

Crushaholic
02-10-2012, 12:17 PM
Obama ran in the GENERAL as a centrist. He ran in the primary left of Hillary. That's the winning formula. For either side. That's part of Mitt's problem. He's making the Hillary mistake. There aren't any candidates strong enough to overtake him based on that alone though.

I think that's what Santorum might do. He's running as "the only true conservative" left in the race. He'll probably temper his views in the general election, if he gets there...

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 12:27 PM
His plan NOW involves less government than what Hillary was proposing.


How he's governed has no relevance though.

There's an internal contradiction in what you're saying. You want to hold out 'how he governed' as evidence in one case, and then hide it in another.

I'll be the first to admit that campaign promises usually fall by the wayside once that ass hits the Oval Office cushion. But you can't pretend that the health care reform that came out of Congress had anything to do with what Obama campaigned on. In fact it's core principle (the mandate) is one Obama specifically opposed in the primary. And it's the principle that has many on the left still furious.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 12:28 PM
People keep talking as if the 30% on the Right, or the 30% on the Left, will decide this election. They won't. The 40% of independents in the middle will. And while the media is focused on the hard Right swing of the GOP primaries, nobody is paying attention to the unaffiliated, silent majority. Santorum will be laughed off the stage by them. The establishment of the GOP know this. The Tea Party believes in fantasy world. Obama plays to those independents, and the moderates in the Dems, every day, and has for the last three years. He ain't dumb, no matter what Fox News thinks. ;D

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:28 PM
I don't see how Obama got anything free or below fair market value. He bought the house for less than the asking price, but if you ever buy a house for the price someone is asking you're paying too much. Then Obama bought a sixth of the land Rezko had bought and paid 1/6 of what rezko paid, which is probably more than the actual value. Obama didn't get a cut rate mortgage, and he didn't get free land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/12/dancing-boys-afghanistan

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

What is was was Obama's patron bought and held land that Obama wanted to add to his yard, and Obama bought it when he got the money. Nixon and BeBe Rebozzo did the same. And the young america foundation paid Nancy Reagan fair value for the ranch, which not only allowed the property to be maintained like a museum but also gave her several million dollars. Obama's a realitively young man who no doubt will make a lot of money when he gets out. But, there are dozens if not hundreds of stories where political benefactors helped pols ... but the key is did they pay fair value. Chris Dodd and Santorum did not, and they paid the price. We pay politicians pretty lightly considering how much money they're handling. People shouldn't get bent out of shape when guys like Jerry Ford cash in when they leave service, or if "friends" help them buy a house that really stretches them. Nixon could have made millions in private business because he'd buy and sell a guy like Romney right off the boat.

The real story on Rezko is how Obama bought into people getting govt loans to build cheap housing and then rent apts to poor people who had Sec. 8 vouchers. I mean Cabrini Green certainly showed that govt shouldn't be managing low income apartments, but the alternative seems to be .... slum lords.

the very fact that BO and Rezko are mentioned in the same breath should scare the hell out of anyone with common sense. Rezko is notorious for corruption and BO was involved with him and his Chicago home. Rezko took care of BO.

I've pointed out that this is just one instance corruption in BO's past. His entire background, from birth to the white house is saturated with questionable dealings, questionable decisions and questionable associates, and that's me being kind.

BO is the most corrupt president that has been in the white house since nixon got booted out and nixon was just paranoid and he made some dumb choices based on his low self confidence more than anything else. BO is the opposite, he's an elitist, entitled player who uses the system to his benefit. Watch BO milk the super pacs for all they are worth because he's a low-life, self-serving narcissist.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:32 PM
People keep talking as if the 30% on the Right, or the 30% on the Left, will decide this election. They won't. The 40% of independents in the middle will. And while the media is focused on the hard Right swing of the GOP primaries, nobody is paying attention to the unaffiliated, silent majority. Santorum will be laughed off the stage by them. The establishment of the GOP know this. The Tea Party believes in fantasy world. Obama plays to those independents, and the moderates in the Dems, every day, and has for the last three years. He ain't dumb, no matter what Fox News thinks. ;D

hahaha, a card carrying democrat tell me how I'm gonna vote, that's great. Keep living the dream.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 12:35 PM
hahaha, a card carrying democrat tell me how I'm gonna vote, that's great. Keep living the dream.

Wow! You're 40% of the electorate? I guess in your own mind, eh?

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:36 PM
Wow! You're 40% of the electorate? I guess in your own mind, eh?

I'm an independent, not a sheep like you.

Drek
02-10-2012, 12:41 PM
the very fact that BO and Rezko are mentioned in the same breath should scare the hell out of anyone with common sense. Rezko is notorious for corruption and BO was involved with him and his Chicago home. Rezko took care of BO.

I've pointed out that this is just one instance corruption in BO's past. His entire background, from birth to the white house is saturated with questionable dealings, questionable decisions and questionable associates, and that's me being kind.

BO is the most corrupt president that has been in the white house since nixon got booted out and nixon was just paranoid and he made some dumb choices based on his low self confidence more than anything else. BO is the opposite, he's an elitist, entitled player who uses the system to his benefit. Watch BO milk the super pacs for all they are worth because he's a low-life, self-serving narcissist.


I'm an independent, not a sheep like you.

These two quotes could only come from the same person if that individual suffered severe dissociative identity disorder.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm an independent, not a sheep like you.

4321~

bendog
02-10-2012, 12:43 PM
the very fact that BO and Rezko are mentioned in the same breath should scare the hell out of anyone with common sense. Rezko is notorious for corruption and BO was involved with him and his Chicago home. Rezko took care of BO.

I've pointed out that this is just one instance corruption in BO's past. His entire background, from birth to the white house is saturated with questionable dealings, questionable decisions and questionable associates, and that's me being kind.

BO is the most corrupt president that has been in the white house since nixon got booted out and nixon was just paranoid and he made some dumb choices based on his low self confidence more than anything else. BO is the opposite, he's an elitist, entitled player who uses the system to his benefit. Watch BO milk the super pacs for all they are worth because he's a low-life, self-serving narcissist.

he's a politician. from Chicago. But the bottom line is nobody can find a dime the guy took as a bribe or without paying taxes on or any property he didn't pay value for. Imo, Gerry Ford was the most honest/decent. Reagan was also very honest and had no interest in personal gain from power. But, hey, you really want me to get bent out of shape over rezko, when you've got BushI, Blair, John Major, Cap Weinberger ... to name a few making billions at Carlyle selling ARMS, and Cheney and Junior with HAL.... fagetaboutit.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:44 PM
awe that's cute roh. you learn that that at the dnc?

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 12:45 PM
awe that's cute roh. you learn that that at the dnc?

Yeah. You're an independent. :rofl:

You're so far Right even Santorum is going, "Chill, bro."

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:47 PM
These two quotes could only come from the same person if that individual suffered severe dissociative identity disorder.

how so?

BroncoInferno
02-10-2012, 12:49 PM
Yeah. You're an independent. :rofl:

You're so far Right even Santorum is going, "Chill, bro."

No kidding. The notion that Tombstone is an independent is a laughable farce. He constantly parrots discredited right-wing talking points (like the Rezko deal earlier that bendog showed to be false) as if he were Rush Limbaugh himself. Once Paul drops out, he'll be voting for GOP nominee in November like the good lemming he is. For him to suggest otherwise means he's either a liar or incredibly self-deluded.

Requiem
02-10-2012, 12:49 PM
Oh you so sweet to me: diabetes, peace treaties -- breakfast of champions, you gonna need Wheaties.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:50 PM
Yeah. You're an independent. :rofl:

You're so far Right even Santorum is going, "Chill, bro."

I've always supported Ron Paul and that means less government, not more. Fact is, I've proven my self to be one of the few independent thinkers on the OM and my posts over the years have proved it.

don't believe me, try the search function homey. I'll stand by every one of my posts over and over and over.

In fact, why don't you take your skirt over to the WRP forum now and look at a few of my posts.

Requiem
02-10-2012, 12:51 PM
No kidding. The notion that Tombstone is an independent is a laughable farce. He constantly parrots discredited right-wing talking points (like RENZ deal earlier than bendog showed to be false). Once Paul drops out, he'll be voting for GOP nominee in November like the good lemming he is. For him to suggest otherwise means he's either a liar or incredibly self-deluded.

The saddest thing is that his ideology and beliefs are lined out so well here. Why he thinks party affiliation is relevant in such matters is beyond me. It is like using the word "INDEPENDENT" makes him "MODERATE."

Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 12:51 PM
The 40% of independents in the middle will. And while the media is focused on the hard Right swing of the GOP primaries, nobody is paying attention to the unaffiliated, silent majority. Santorum will be laughed off the stage by them. The establishment of the GOP know this. The Tea Party believes in fantasy world. Obama plays to those independents, and the moderates in the Dems, every day, and has for the last three years. He ain't dumb, no matter what Fox News thinks. ;D

I'd normally agree with most of that. But this week's pissin' contest with the Catholic Church has me wondering.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:53 PM
No kidding. The notion that Tombstone is an independent is a laughable farce. He constantly parrots discredited right-wing talking points (like the Rezko deal earlier that bendog showed to be false) as if he were Rush Limbaugh himself. Once Paul drops out, he'll be voting for GOP nominee in November like the good lemming he is. For him to suggest otherwise means he's either a liar or incredibly self-deluded.

prove it. do a search of my posts and what I've said about Limbaugh. Go ahead, I'll eagerly await what you find out.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:55 PM
The saddest thing is that his ideology and beliefs are lined out so well here. Why he thinks party affiliation is relevant in such matters is beyond me. It is like using the word "INDEPENDENT" makes him "MODERATE."

Hilarious!

What do you believe in req besides more education and paying academia to tell you how to think?

Requiem
02-10-2012, 12:55 PM
http://troll.me/images/conspiracy-keanu/what-if-all-the-other-republican-candidates-are-made-to-look-retarded-on-purpose-to-make-us-all-vote-for-ron-paul-thumb.jpg

BroncoInferno
02-10-2012, 12:55 PM
prove it. do a search of my posts and what I've said about Limbaugh. Go ahead, I'll eagerly await what you find out.

Of course you denounce Limbaugh....but you strangely repeat the kind of discredited BS that Limbaugh does, like the Rezco deal. Strange. Like I said, self-deluded.

Requiem
02-10-2012, 12:56 PM
What do you believe in req besides more education and paying academia to tell you how to think?

I think education is important. If I wanted to go into academia to have my mind numbed and told how think and operate like a robot, I would have been a Business Administration major.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 12:58 PM
Of course you denounce Limbaugh....but you strangely repeat the kind of discredited BS that Limbaugh does, like the Rezco deal. Strange. Like I said, self-deluded.

That's kind of a crap equivalence.

You say X and Limbaugh says X, therefore You = Limbaugh.

I could equate anyone with anyone using that logic.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 12:58 PM
Of course you denounce Limbaugh....but you strangely repeat the kind of discredited BS that Limbaugh does, like the Rezco deal. Strange. Like I said, self-deluded.

bs, and a very nice cop out. Do a search of my opinion of Limbaugh. I'll tell you again what I've told you in the past, you are the one who listens to him, not me. I don't listen to the guy, I never have and I never will. I find it funny that you know what he's saying and I have no clue what the guy talks about, nor do I care.

bendog
02-10-2012, 01:02 PM
I've always supported Ron Paul and that means less government, not more. Fact is, I've proven my self to be one of the few independent thinkers on the OM and my posts over the years have proved it.

don't believe me, try the search function homey. I'll stand by every one of my posts over and over and over.

In fact, why don't you take your skirt over to the WRP forum now and look at a few of my posts.

I give you that, but seriously whacked on the obama corruption angle. sure, he's bent.

Requiem
02-10-2012, 01:02 PM
http://www.hudsonhouston.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lincoln-bill-and-ted.jpg

bendog
02-10-2012, 01:04 PM
Honest Abe was a railroad lawyer who gave away what would be trillions today. Just sayin

Requiem
02-10-2012, 01:07 PM
Honest Abe was a railroad lawyer who gave away what would be trillions today. Just sayin

He shouldn't have been standing there.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 01:08 PM
I give you that, but seriously whacked on the obama corruption angle. sure, he's bent.

where there's smoke there's fire and if BO was a repub I'd be holding him just as accountable if not more so. The fact that BO cut his teeth in the Chicago Democratic Party Machine with the likes of Rezko is just one aspect of his background that is suspect. The biggest compliment I can give BO is that he's a true politician, and that ain't saying much.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 01:09 PM
I've always supported Ron Paul and that means less government, not more. Fact is, I've proven my self to be one of the few independent thinkers on the OM and my posts over the years have proved it.

don't believe me, try the search function homey. I'll stand by every one of my posts over and over and over.

In fact, why don't you take your skirt over to the WRP forum now and look at a few of my posts.

Too bad Ron Paul is running for sainthood rather than the presidency, as in, here in the real world. I don't have to look up any of your troglodyte rants to know where you're coming from. You're absolutely right. You never evolve.

BTW, it's a kilt. Homey. :puff:

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 01:11 PM
Honest Abe was a railroad lawyer who gave away what would be trillions today. Just sayin

Ever read about what TR pulled to get the Panama Canal built? Just sayin'.

Requiem
02-10-2012, 01:12 PM
Pulled on his weiner really hard.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 01:13 PM
Too bad Ron Paul is running for sainthood rather than the presidency, as in, here in the real world. I don't have to look up any of your troglodyte rants to know where you're coming from. You're absolutely right. You never evolve.

BTW, it's a kilt. Homey. :puff:

who's the troglodyte again? Oh yah, I forgot it's the guy who parrots the OWS crowd. Roh, thinking outside the box, again!

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 01:14 PM
Pulled on his weiner really hard.

More like Columbia's balls. ;D

Requiem
02-10-2012, 01:14 PM
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/rpsd-550x412.jpg

bendog
02-10-2012, 01:16 PM
where there's smoke there's fire and if BO was a repub I'd be holding him just as accountable if not more so. The fact that BO cut his teeth in the Chicago Democratic Party Machine with the likes of Rezko is just one aspect of his background that is suspect. The biggest compliment I can give BO is that he's a true politician, and that ain't saying much.

Well, my friend, I just don't think you held the bushs or cheney or bachmann or romney to the same standard. Now IF you'd compared and contrasted obama's background, education and work history to someone like ... Boehner ... then I think you'd really illuminate where Barry is coming from. But it's not about personal corruption that's driving you on this, imo. And I'm not making any race comment here, not even a little. Obama after all was raised by a white banker.

However, there's no doubt that Paul has put his money where his mouth was.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 01:20 PM
Romney now trying to create new, "hard Right" bona fides for the CPAC crowd.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/10/146703916/in-plea-to-the-right-romney-bills-himself-as-severely-conservative?ft=1&f=1001

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2012, 01:22 PM
Well, my friend, I just don't think you held the bushs or cheney or bachmann or romney to the same standard. Now IF you'd compared and contrasted obama's background, education and work history to someone like ... Boehner ... then I think you'd really illuminate where Barry is coming from. But it's not about personal corruption that's driving you on this, imo. And I'm not making any race comment here, not even a little. Obama after all was raised by a white banker.

However, there's no doubt that Paul has put his money where his mouth was.

I'm not letting the GOP off the hook. Cheney should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and he's a Wyoming guy. The entire system is corrupt and my biggest beef is with DC as a whole. All the politicians and their ties with big business and banks and wall street. One reason I like RP is because he operates with integrity. He's not perfect and he has some pretty whacked out ideas about things like foreign policy, but he has your's and mine best interest at heart. I believe he's not in it for himself, but for the people, and that is a foundation upon which I will gladly lend my support.

TonyR
02-10-2012, 01:30 PM
I'd normally agree with most of that. But this week's pissin' contest with the Catholic Church has me wondering.

I'd agree at first glance. But when you look closer you'll see that a majority of Americans, and an even larger majority of Catholics, actually agree with Obama's "side" on this issue.

Rohirrim
02-10-2012, 01:44 PM
Carville does it again. ;D

So guys, this is where you are. You are going to nominate a politically detached candidate who speaks French, has Swiss bank accounts, lives in Massachusetts, went to Harvard, whose daddy was born in Mexico. Way to go! I'll check back with you boys after Mardi Gras. In the meantime, laissez les bons temps rouler! (It's French. Ask the Mittster to translate.)
Btw: (That's how young people do P.S. -- thought I would give you a heads-up) Was I the only person who noticed your turnout collapsed in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and everywhere else? You better get Dick Armey to raise a bunch of polluter money and stoke up those tea partiers.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/carville-republicans/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 01:51 PM
I'd agree at first glance. But when you look closer you'll see that a majority of Americans, and an even larger majority of Catholics, actually agree with Obama's "side" on this issue.

Depends on how it's phrased. Ask people if they think a Church that believes contraception is wrong should be forced to pay for it and I don't think you'll find much support.

Most of the data I've seen supporting the other side is that 'Lots of people, even Catholics, use contraception'

It's a big reach to go from "Uses contraception" to "Supports forcing people to pay for it against their conscience"

Either way I don't think it'll hold up in court. But regardless it's pretty boneheaded to start this kind of battle in an election year.

bendog
02-10-2012, 01:55 PM
I'd agree at first glance. But when you look closer you'll see that a majority of Americans, and an even larger majority of Catholics, actually agree with Obama's "side" on this issue.

And obama gets his assh handed to him. LOL

The real rub here is that the bottom line is that MOST of us don't think the Feds shoud tell us our health insurance has to cover. If it were just contraception, and the issue is all non-profit hospitals covered it and the non-profits claiming some religious affiliation did not, a large majority would be lauging their assaaes off at a bunch 'of funny old men in dresses.'

bendog
02-10-2012, 01:56 PM
I'm not letting the GOP off the hook. Cheney should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and he's a Wyoming guy. The entire system is corrupt and my biggest beef is with DC as a whole. All the politicians and their ties with big business and banks and wall street. One reason I like RP is because he operates with integrity. He's not perfect and he has some pretty whacked out ideas about things like foreign policy, but he has your's and mine best interest at heart. I believe he's not in it for himself, but for the people, and that is a foundation upon which I will gladly lend my support.

I agree with you. Ron Paul is in it for his ego, but he's also sincere.

Drek
02-10-2012, 02:02 PM
There's an internal contradiction in what you're saying. You want to hold out 'how he governed' as evidence in one case, and then hide it in another.

I'll be the first to admit that campaign promises usually fall by the wayside once that ass hits the Oval Office cushion. But you can't pretend that the health care reform that came out of Congress had anything to do with what Obama campaigned on. In fact it's core principle (the mandate) is one Obama specifically opposed in the primary. And it's the principle that has many on the left still furious.
No, you're trying to tie two different things together. Your original claim was that he had to run to the middle for the general after going far left to beat Hillary. I've agreed that he's gone to the middle as POTUS, just like he said he would the day he won the election. But during the general his health care talk involved no kind of mandate at all.

Are you forgetting where this entire discussion started? You claimed Huntsman didn't run hard enough to the right in the primaries, after winning those then banking back hard to the middle. You used Obama going hard left of Hillary as an example. I said that wasn't true and he stayed effectively the same from the start of the primaries until he won the general. This is why talking about his record as POTUS is irrelevant. Now on the tangent of his healthcare plan v. what we got, obviously he did come to the middle and backtracked on things he said, like the mandate. Obviously a lot of that was a result of not getting the things needed to make a mandate unnecessary (public option for example). This is what happens when someone works as a moderate in Washington, they often end up sacrificing the "great" that you can never achieve for the "very good" you can get passed today.

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 02:21 PM
Your original claim was that he had to run to the middle for the general after going far left to beat Hillary. I've agreed that he's gone to the middle as POTUS, just like he said he would the day he won the election. But during the general his health care talk involved no kind of mandate at all.

Well as far as health care specifics, the vapidity of that whole campaign never asked much of Obama or McCain in terms of hard specifics. Obama made it through to the presidency without anyone really knowing what he would do on health care. I doubt he himself knew. And when he took office, he mostly outsourced the details to his friends in Congress.

But we'll still differ on whether Obama went from left to center during the General. I'm certainly not alone in my assessment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

pricejj
02-10-2012, 02:30 PM
I'd agree at first glance. But when you look closer you'll see that a majority of Americans, and an even larger majority of Catholics, actually agree with Obama's "side" on this issue.

Really? Because I just dropped my health insurance :wave:

BroncoBeavis
02-10-2012, 02:42 PM
Here's another example.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/

The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy

TonyR
02-10-2012, 03:55 PM
The real rub here is that the bottom line is that MOST of us don't think the Feds shoud tell us our health insurance has to cover.

Where does the line get drawn? Some people are opposed to immunizations. Should they stop covering those? Some people are opposed to blood transfusions. Stop there, too? How about medicines that are derived from animal testing. Can't offend the people who object to that!

Hey, I've got an idea. Since almost all women use contraception how about giving them the choice rather than their employer? The women who object to it don't have to buy it. But why penalize the large majority who do use it?

Dexter
02-11-2012, 12:20 AM
I'm not letting the GOP off the hook. Cheney should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and he's a Wyoming guy. The entire system is corrupt and my biggest beef is with DC as a whole. All the politicians and their ties with big business and banks and wall street. One reason I like RP is because he operates with integrity. He's not perfect and he has some pretty whacked out ideas about things like foreign policy, but he has your's and mine best interest at heart. I believe he's not in it for himself, but for the people, and that is a foundation upon which I will gladly lend my support.

This is exactly how I feel. Exactly.^5 Actually, I like his take on foreign policy. We get ourselves into way too much ****. What I think is whacked out is his take on eliminating the EPA, Department of Education etc. It all sounds good in theory, but you remove those things, bad things are going to happen. They were created for a reason, and have their uses. I think "reform" is a better idea than "remove".

Dexter
02-11-2012, 12:26 AM
Where does the line get drawn? Some people are opposed to immunizations. Should they stop covering those? Some people are opposed to blood transfusions. Stop there, too? How about medicines that are derived from animal testing. Can't offend the people who object to that!

Hey, I've got an idea. Since almost all women use contraception how about giving them the choice rather than their employer? The women who object to it don't have to buy it. But why penalize the large majority who do use it?

What a splendid idea! You know, just totally derailing the **** out of this debate, I don't understand why the hardcore religious individuals in this country are so opposed to contraception. You'd think that even if they disagree with the concept of having sex out of wedlock (haha, hypocrites most of em) they'd concede its going to happen. In which case, wouldn't it be smart to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies as to limit the number of abortions? They'd be saving more "lives" that way yes?

Dexter
02-11-2012, 12:38 AM
Oh and by the way, an interesting take on the whole issue. Maybe it wasn't a bad move by Obama? I'm not sure if I agree with the article, but its an interesting idea none the less.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?wpisrc=slate_r iver

SoCalBronco
02-11-2012, 01:08 AM
From a fiscal perspective, I'm starting to think that the best result is also the most likely result: Obama being re-elected and the Republicans maintaining control of the House and taking the Senate back as well.

This way the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire and there won't be a realistic chance that they'll be revived (veto), while the GOP Congress will force Obama to make necessary concessions in Medicare and Social Security (inflationary formulas, benefit reductions, eligibility age changes etc) for long-term fiscal viability and they'll force him to consolidate rather than expand government programs in general (which is definitely appropriate for this era of austerity). Additionally, the "leaner" approach to the military that's underway in the Administration will be allowed to continue so we can net some savings there (necessary, everyone has to share the pain) , but Republican control of the Congress will make sure the cuts aren't unreasonably deep and that vital intelligence, counter-terrorism and R&D spending is preserved. Both sides check the other's penchant for irresponsibility.

Pseudofool
02-11-2012, 01:52 PM
From a fiscal perspective, I'm starting to think that the best result is also the most likely result: Obama being re-elected and the Republicans maintaining control of the House and taking the Senate back as well. Why do you think it's likely the Republicans retake the Senate and maintain control of the House, if Obama will win. It's hard for me to imagine any scenario where Obama wins that doesn't negatively affect Republicans ability to control congress. (Given that the Republican take over of the House was built on tea-party momentum, I'm not sure I see that being reproduced this cycle, esp. with Romney as the nominee. If Santorum ends being the nominee, I think we can expect a national backlash on social conversativism/tea party core beliefs.)

Pseudofool
02-11-2012, 01:55 PM
Oh and by the way, an interesting take on the whole issue. Maybe it wasn't a bad move by Obama? I'm not sure if I agree with the article, but its an interesting idea none the less.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?wpisrc=slate_r iverThat's a perfectly acceptable compromise from my point of view. No one will require Religious Institutions to provide BC, but their employees will still have the right to receive it from the Insurance companies. I doubt this mitigates the religious frenzy, as what they really want is to prevent access to birth control (esp. as a national mandate, private or public).

TonyR
02-11-2012, 04:24 PM
But regardless it's pretty boneheaded to start this kind of battle in an election year.

Maybe. And maybe not...

Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html

The opponents of the rule have begun to overreach at the same time that the administration offered to accomodate their objections. Not only does this make them look unreasonable—to an already unsupportive public—but it undermines their case, which is that this is an attack on religious liberty. If the issue is religious practice, then they should be willing to accept an agreement that preserves their freedom, while providing for women’s health.http://prospect.org/article/bishops-republicans-get-served

SoCalBronco
02-11-2012, 05:18 PM
Why do you think it's likely the Republicans retake the Senate and maintain control of the House, if Obama will win. It's hard for me to imagine any scenario where Obama wins that doesn't negatively affect Republicans ability to control congress. (Given that the Republican take over of the House was built on tea-party momentum, I'm not sure I see that being reproduced this cycle, esp. with Romney as the nominee. If Santorum ends being the nominee, I think we can expect a national backlash on social conversativism/tea party core beliefs.)

It's highly likely the GOP will retake the Senate as the Dems have to defend something like 23 seats and the GOP only 10. Under almost any scenario, there will be a decent net pickup for the GOP and they only have to pick up a couple to take back the Senate. I suspect they'll hold onto the House as well, even with a less than enthusiastic turnout for Romney as redistricting will net a few and the retirements this year look like a slight gain as well. I don't think its particularly difficult for the GOP to hold onto the House even with an Obama win. Obama isn't exactly going to have long coattails, or any coattails for that matter. He's benefitting from a slightly improving economy and what will be anywhere from a mediocre to terrible opponent. A 45% approval President doesn't have coattails. I think its an absolute lock that the Senate will go Republican.

BTW, I don't see a viable scenario where Santorum wins the nomination. It's just not realistic (and I say that knowing that there was a recent poll out today showing him re-taking the national lead over Romney). I think its very possible we could go to the convention without anyone hitting the required 1400 odd delegates, but I can't see a scenario where Santorum will somehow pull it out. If he somehow does, it will be a replay of 1964.

Cito Pelon
02-11-2012, 09:37 PM
From a fiscal perspective, I'm starting to think that the best result is also the most likely result: Obama being re-elected and the Republicans maintaining control of the House and taking the Senate back as well.

This way the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire and there won't be a realistic chance that they'll be revived (veto), while the GOP Congress will force Obama to make necessary concessions in Medicare and Social Security (inflationary formulas, benefit reductions, eligibility age changes etc) for long-term fiscal viability and they'll force him to consolidate rather than expand government programs in general (which is definitely appropriate for this era of austerity). Additionally, the "leaner" approach to the military that's underway in the Administration will be allowed to continue so we can net some savings there (necessary, everyone has to share the pain) , but Republican control of the Congress will make sure the cuts aren't unreasonably deep and that vital intelligence, counter-terrorism and R&D spending is preserved. Both sides check the other's penchant for irresponsibility.

I agree, I'm wondering if there actually will occur that give and take to accomplish something.

Paladin
02-11-2012, 09:46 PM
Well, what if the Dems were able to hold enough of the Senate seats to maintain the current number plus take away maybe five of the Rep seats? Could happen. May be just as likely as your opinion/scenario. Voters are not stupid as some here would have them be. Probably best to wait until you know who is runnng. Think Warren against Brown, for example................





(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)