PDA

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


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

pricejj
02-11-2012, 11:34 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................

That's basically the situation we have now...and Harry Reid has done absolutely nothing since the Democrats lost the super majority...they can't even pass a freaking budget. Harry Reid is an epic fail on the most grandiose of scales.

pricejj
02-12-2012, 12:00 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.

1. The tax rates that have been in effect for the last 12 years won't change. Democrats were too chickensh*t to let them expire when they had a super-majority, and now play the class-warfare game for a measly $50B (if they can lock in 30% tax rate for millionaires)...which I don't see happening.

2. Obama is totally irresponsible, and incabable of leading anyone, let alone the U.S. ($5.5T debt in 4 years??!!!!!!)

3. Military spending, although an issue, would have little justification to be ramped up much in the next 4 years. Democrats and Republicans both are banging the drums on Iran. Obama would have just as much if not more penchant for war in Iran as Romney. If the Republicans had the super-majority, they would avoid an all-out war for fear of repurcussions from the voting public. Obama has shown that he doesn't give a sh*t about public sentiment.

4. A Republican super-majority would get the deficit under control, and reform Medicare, and SS in an efficient way. Paul Ryan can tackle Medicare, SS can be made sustainable easily. Any Democrat control in Congress or the Presidency would prevent that from happening the way it needs to.

5. Obama has increased military spending just as much as any Republican President. Whatever the U.S. military future with Iran, it will happen no matter if Romney, or Obama, is in office.

6. Bottom line: I wouldn't trust Obama with a middle school student council budget.

Paladin
02-12-2012, 10:44 AM
And I wouldn't trust a repugnican with a match.

Your criticism of Obama is bogus witout specifics; anyone can make global statements without facts. Remember there are two sides to the story. If the Tepugnicans would compromise in good faith, the year would have been better.....







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

BroncoBeavis
02-12-2012, 11:21 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?

Here's another thought. We take the concept of health 'insurance' way too far. Contraception isn't expensive. It's a routine and fairly fixed cost. Why in the world should it be 'insured?'

Insurance is designed to cover risks that are unpredictable and/or catastrophic. Mandating coverage for birth control is like mandating that auto insurers should pay for oil changes.

The real answer is that the government likes to use 'insurance' as a way to enforce their own views on things.

Paladin
02-12-2012, 11:56 AM
Talk to your State Insurance Commissioner. Find out who regulates what.








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

BroncoBeavis
02-12-2012, 02:41 PM
Maybe. And maybe not...

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

http://prospect.org/article/bishops-republicans-get-served

Only someone who thinks trillion dollar deficits are sustainable could think that the compromise on offer makes any difference. You're acting like that shamwow salesman who offers 3 more 'free' shamwows so long as you pay for the 'processing and handling'

But hey, those shamwows are "Free*"

In the end, the cost is born by the person paying for the policy. No matter what gimmickry used to disguise it.

Paladin
02-12-2012, 03:08 PM
It was Cheany who said that deficits didn't matter. Bushii believed him. Look what that got us...... Two wars, Part D and free money for the rich. Who could ask for more?






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

BroncoBeavis
02-12-2012, 03:16 PM
It was Cheany who said that deficits didn't matter. Bushii believed him. Look what that got us...... Two wars, Part D and free money for the rich. Who could ask for more?






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

Good for him. Now we're racking them up 3x faster.. Probably even more.

And it's mostly because of new spending.

BroncoBuff
02-13-2012, 01:40 AM
Here's a wiki cli
[I]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 attaking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles.

This and the Condaleeza Rice "we are absolutely certain" quote about the aluminum tubes, such horrific displays of bumbling ineptitude at the highest levels of the executive, military and intelligence communities, I think I would rather they were lies. Less embarrasing.

BroncoInferno
02-13-2012, 10:17 AM
Posted this in the WRP forum as well:

20% of Republicans are leaning towards voting for Obama.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/20-of-republicans-leaning-to-obama/

alkemical
02-13-2012, 10:43 AM
Do these #'s really mean anything? How do they gauge 20%? Why is it important to know?

BroncoInferno
02-13-2012, 10:49 AM
Do these #'s really mean anything? How do they gauge 20%? Why is it important to know?

It's important to know because it harkens back to what a lot of us have been saying: the GOP has gone so far to the right that they are turning off moderate Republicans (see SoCal's comments earlier) to the point to where they'd actually consider voting for Obama. It also indicates a base that is not excited about its choices, and that could have a big impact on voter turnout (this is also evidenced by the low voter turnout during the primaries).

alkemical
02-13-2012, 10:51 AM
It's important to know because it harkens back to what a lot of us have been saying: the GOP has gone so far to the right that they are turning off moderate Republicans (see SoCal's comments earlier) to the point to where they'd actually consider voting for Obama. It also indicates a base that is not excited about its choices, and that could have a big impact on voter turnout (this is also evidenced by the low voter turnout during the primaries).

I just see stuff like this, and think it's marketing*.

BroncoInferno
02-13-2012, 10:54 AM
I just see stuff like this, and think it's marketing*.

Keep in mind that the link I posted is from WorldNetDaily, a conservative website.

BroncoBeavis
02-13-2012, 11:07 AM
Keep in mind that the link I posted is from WorldNetDaily, a conservative website.

You can also go back to 2008 and find that when asked, a ton of Hillary voters threatened to vote for McCain. Sour Grapes holds on for awhile.

Then in the general they come home. National polls during primary season are really pretty useless.

alkemical
02-13-2012, 11:14 AM
Keep in mind that the link I posted is from WorldNetDaily, a conservative website.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything. What's their game, why push that information?

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/wndbackers.html

TonyR
02-13-2012, 11:45 AM
“Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell in “Politics and the English Language."
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/104721

BroncoBuff
02-13-2012, 05:40 PM
I barely ever heard anything about him. Huntsman popped up outta the blue for me and was gone as quickly as he appeared.

Jon Hunstman, he's no a rightard. Believes in evolution, civil unions, speaks fluent Chinese, supposedly likes progressive heavy metal music. Ambassador to China under Obama (he steped down last Spring to come home and run for president, the WH issued press releases thanking Amb. Hunstman for his "tireless advocacy of the Obama agenda in the far East, was a real team player." :~ohyah!:)


Here's some Huntsman honesty: He dropped out of the race a couple weeks ago and endorsed fellow-Mormon Mitt Romney, but
When asked if he trusts Governor Romney, Huntsman replied, “He has not put forth reason to give us a reason for us to trust him.”

Earlier this month, he told another ABC reporter that Romney is “completely out of touch.”


If Obama is reelected, Huntsman will probably be back strong in 2016. We all better hope he does, because there's a rightard born again whack-job savior for the GOP, John Thune. He's young, good looking, well spoken ... has all of the Gingrich/Santorum world view, and none of the Gingrich/Santorum baggage. Obama is lucky he didn't run this time.

BroncoBuff
02-13-2012, 05:44 PM
“Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

- George Orwell in “Politics and the English Language."
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/104721

Nonsense. That's merely cynicism run amok.

That One Guy
02-13-2012, 08:24 PM
It's important to know because it harkens back to what a lot of us have been saying: the GOP has gone so far to the right that they are turning off moderate Republicans (see SoCal's comments earlier) to the point to where they'd actually consider voting for Obama. It also indicates a base that is not excited about its choices, and that could have a big impact on voter turnout (this is also evidenced by the low voter turnout during the primaries).

Romney is the presumed candidate at this point. Romney is hardly far right. This premise is silly and makes no sense.

BroncoInferno
02-13-2012, 10:36 PM
Romney is the presumed candidate at this point. Romney is hardly far right. This premise is silly and makes no sense.

Romney is trying to play the role of far-right ideologue to appeal to the lunatic wingnuts and fend off Santorum and Gingrich (he referred to himself as a "severe conservative" the other day Ha!). Problem for him is that nobody on the right buys the act, and he's turning off moderates/independents in the process. Like I said, no one is excited about him as a candidate.

Dexter
02-14-2012, 02:30 AM
I'll just leave this here....

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1130394--why-mitt-romney-should-have-to-pay-3-339-04-for-a-pizza?bn=1

LOL

It is kind of what I've been thinking. How can he really relate with the people who struggle in this country?

alkemical
02-14-2012, 06:10 AM
I'll just leave this here....

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1130394--why-mitt-romney-should-have-to-pay-3-339-04-for-a-pizza?bn=1

LOL

It is kind of what I've been thinking. How can he really relate with the people who struggle in this country?

Voting for Romney = Shopping @ Mao-Mart

alkemical
02-14-2012, 06:53 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

BBC: With one and a half million American children now homeless, reporter Hilary Andersson meets the school pupils who go hungry in the richest country on Earth. From those living in the storm drains under Las Vegas to the tent cities now springing up around the United States...

IdahoBronco7
02-14-2012, 10:47 AM
?

bendog
02-14-2012, 10:56 AM
on his first day, he apologized for America. It's true. Look it up.

Really, its a sad day when my former party can't nominate a candidate who could win. The good news is that if Obama gives us another drubbing, Jeb and Chris may be good foe 12 years after the loons are told to stfu and sit down.

alkemical
02-14-2012, 11:12 AM
http://bigthink.com/ideas/42439

Obama's Budget Priorities: Can We Compete with China and India?
from Big Think by Cody Adams


President Obama has unveiled his proposed 10-year budget today, and while there’s nothing particularly shocking included for those who have been following the ongoing debate between the White House and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the new economic plan for the United States ...

Read More (http://bigthink.com/ideas/42439)

Rohirrim
02-14-2012, 11:34 AM
on his first day, he apologized for America. It's true. Look it up.

Really, its a sad day when my former party can't nominate a candidate who could win. The good news is that if Obama gives us another drubbing, Jeb and Chris may be good foe 12 years after the loons are told to stfu and sit down.

Given where our politics are heading, it would be fitting to have a president named "Jeb." ;D

bendog
02-14-2012, 11:37 AM
Given where our politics are heading, it would be fitting to have a president named "Jeb." ;D

We weren't all wrong in that dern war a nerthern aggression

TonyR
02-14-2012, 12:28 PM
Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told

The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders.

They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.
The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.

This is not a very complimentary assessment of Romney's leadership. It's also not a very realistic political program: congressional Republicans have a disapproval rating of about 75%. If Americans get the idea that a vote for Romney is a vote for the Ryan plan, Romney is more or less doomed.

To date, sad to say, Romney has worked hard to confirm this image of weakness.

Nobody wants a president who acts as the passive instrument of even generally popular groups like labor unions. (Did you know that—despite decades of declining popularity—unions still have an approval rating of 52%? I didn't until I looked it up.)

But a candidate who appeases the most disliked people in national politics? That guy will command neither public affection nor respect.

Mitt Romney badly needs his Sister Souljah moment. Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Pseudofool
02-15-2012, 04:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/15/magazine/what-are-the-chances-for-republicans.html
Neat Doohickey estimating the Republicans chances based on sliders for Obama's approval and GDP growth.

BroncoBuff
02-15-2012, 04:57 PM
on his first day, he apologized for America. It's true. Look it up.

What does that even mean, "he apologized for America"?

Whatever "apology" he may have issued was undoubtedly more of an "acknowledgment" of mistakes or misjudgments. There are several such recent transgressions worthy of acknowledgment from a leader not afraid to take responsibility for and try to clean up the messes left behind.

Cito Pelon
02-15-2012, 07:57 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Friggin Norquist. "Don't even sit down at the table with the Democrats to discuss tax increases."

He has a stranglehold on the GOP because the GOP office holders were stupid enough to take the "Norquist Pledge" to never increase taxes. But, Romney wants to increase taxes on the lower income classes, but not on the higher income classes, I guess that's good enough for Norquist.

Rohirrim
02-15-2012, 08:47 PM
Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.


I always knew the "New" Republicans didn't give a **** about our form of government, but to just hear their fuhrer come right out and say basically, Right Wing ideology comes first, is a bit eye opening.

BroncoBuff
02-15-2012, 11:07 PM
This is fun for sure, laughing at Republicans wasting their votes on clowns like Gingrich and Santorum, while their only plausible candidate is again and again forced to clumsily lurch rightward to save his ass. It's funny now, but these primary voters might not have to waste their votes next time. I mentioned before, John Thune has all of the Santorum/Gingrich fringe right crazy, with none of the Santorum/Gingrich baggage. He's an evangelical with perfect 100 ratings from conservative groups, strictly pro-life, anti-gay marriage, never met a war he wouldn't vote for or a weapon he wouldn't buy.

Maybe you take solace that the general electorate isn't that crazy ... but this economy is apparently not likely to snap back, and voters historically lean toward changing parties after a two-term president anyway.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XywOqZ04Aqw/TWR8l-Sn4mI/AAAAAAAACzg/pw9PLhYwOeg/s1600/Senator-John-Thune.jpg

alkemical
02-16-2012, 07:07 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/private-prison-corporation-offers-to-buy-48-states-prisons/

Private Prison Corporation Offers To Buy 48 States’ Prisons

Posted by JacobSloan on February 15, 2012

3557791151_885f645d7eThis snippet bears repeating: “The company is asking for an assurance that the prison would remain at least 90 percent full.” Via Huffington Post:

A Wall Street giant, Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest operator of for-profit prisons, has sent letters recently to 48 states offering to buy up their prisons as a remedy for “challenging corrections budgets.” In exchange, the company is asking for a 20-year management contract, plus an assurance that the prison would remain at least 90 percent full, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Huffington Post.

Corrections Corporation has been a swiftly growing business, with revenues expanding more than fivefold since the mid-1990s. The company capitalized on the expansion of state prison systems in the ’80s and ’90s at the height of the so-called ‘war on drugs’. During the past 10 years, it has found new opportunity in the business of locking up undocumented immigrants, as the federal government has contracted with private companies in an aggressive immigrant-detention campaign.

A series of studies has cast doubt on the private prison industry’s main selling point: efficiency. Research across numerous states has shown that the promised savings from private prisons can be illusory at best. What’s more, many civil liberties advocates question why a profit motive should be tied to incarceration policies, raising concerns that cutting costs could have an adverse effect on public safety.

alkemical
02-16-2012, 07:12 AM
http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/O4FCLEOQYto/whats-the-social-cost-of-mak.html

What's the social cost of making it harder to get Sudafed?


Writing in The Atlantic, Megan McArdle analyzes the societal cost of requiring a doctor's visit to get a prescription for Sudafed, in order to make it harder to acquire materials used in fabricating meth. She makes a compelling case that, as bad as meth labs are, and as much as they cost society, cracking down on basic, useful medicine also entails horrendous expense.

But this is sort of a side issue. What really bothers me is the way that Humphreys--and others who show up in the comments--regard the rather extraordinary cost of making PSE prescription-only as too trivial to mention.

Let's return to those 15 million cold sufferers. Assume that on average, they want one box a year. That's going to require a visit to the doctor. At an average copay of $20, their costs alone would be $300 million a year, but of course, the health care system is also paying a substantial amount for the doctor's visit. The average reimbursement from private insurance is $130; for Medicare, it's about $60. Medicaid pays less, but that's why people on Medicaid have such a hard time finding a doctor. So average those two together, and add the copays, and you've got at least $1.5 billion in direct costs to obtain a simple decongestant. But that doesn't include the hassle and possibly lost wages for the doctor's visits. Nor the possible secondary effects of putting more demands on an already none-too-plentiful supply of primary care physicians.

Of course, those wouldn't be the real costs, because lots of people wouldn't be able to take the time for a doctor's visit. So they'd just be more miserable while their colds last. What's the cost of that--in suffering, in lost productivity?

Perhaps it would be simpler to just raise the price of a box of Sudafed to $100. Surely that would make meth labs unprofitable--and save us the annoyance of a doctor's visit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/do-we-need-even-tighter-controls-on-sudafed/252637/

TonyR
02-16-2012, 07:20 AM
John Thune has all of the Santorum/Gingrich fringe right crazy, with none of the Santorum/Gingrich baggage. He's an evangelical with perfect 100 ratings from conservative groups, strictly pro-life, anti-gay marriage, never met a war he wouldn't vote for or a weapon he wouldn't buy.

That's some terrifying stuff right there.

Rohirrim
02-16-2012, 07:56 AM
What does that even mean, "he apologized for America"?

Whatever "apology" he may have issued was undoubtedly more of an "acknowledgment" of mistakes or misjudgments. There are several such recent transgressions worthy of acknowledgment from a leader not afraid to take responsibility for and try to clean up the messes left behind.

After Bush, there was plenty to apologize for.

I was watching Bill Maher last night. He had a woman on who is an editor for The Economist. From her demeanor and comments (they were talking about how the world is in one of the worst economic disasters ever and in America we are arguing about contraception) it's clear that the rest of the Western World thinks we have gone insane. Ha!

BroncoBeavis
02-16-2012, 08:04 AM
http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/O4FCLEOQYto/whats-the-social-cost-of-mak.html

What's the social cost of making it harder to get Sudafed?


Writing in The Atlantic, Megan McArdle analyzes the societal cost of requiring a doctor's visit to get a prescription for Sudafed, in order to make it harder to acquire materials used in fabricating meth. She makes a compelling case that, as bad as meth labs are, and as much as they cost society, cracking down on basic, useful medicine also entails horrendous expense.

But this is sort of a side issue. What really bothers me is the way that Humphreys--and others who show up in the comments--regard the rather extraordinary cost of making PSE prescription-only as too trivial to mention.

Let's return to those 15 million cold sufferers. Assume that on average, they want one box a year. That's going to require a visit to the doctor. At an average copay of $20, their costs alone would be $300 million a year, but of course, the health care system is also paying a substantial amount for the doctor's visit. The average reimbursement from private insurance is $130; for Medicare, it's about $60. Medicaid pays less, but that's why people on Medicaid have such a hard time finding a doctor. So average those two together, and add the copays, and you've got at least $1.5 billion in direct costs to obtain a simple decongestant. But that doesn't include the hassle and possibly lost wages for the doctor's visits. Nor the possible secondary effects of putting more demands on an already none-too-plentiful supply of primary care physicians.

Of course, those wouldn't be the real costs, because lots of people wouldn't be able to take the time for a doctor's visit. So they'd just be more miserable while their colds last. What's the cost of that--in suffering, in lost productivity?

Perhaps it would be simpler to just raise the price of a box of Sudafed to $100. Surely that would make meth labs unprofitable--and save us the annoyance of a doctor's visit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/do-we-need-even-tighter-controls-on-sudafed/252637/

It's a good example of how the employer-provided insurance model of healthcare allows insane costs to be hidden.

Either way, a person is paying $100 for what they used to pay $5 for. If you put that on the price tag on the bottle, people would be up in arms. But if you let it all happen behind the scenes with the magic of 'insurance' they don't even care. Either way they're paying the bill though.

BroncoBeavis
02-16-2012, 08:09 AM
After Bush, there was plenty to apologize for.

I was watching Bill Maher last night. He had a woman on who is an editor for The Economist. From her demeanor and comments (they were talking about how the world is in one of the worst economic disasters ever and in America we are arguing about contraception) it's clear that the rest of the Western World thinks we have gone insane. Ha!

Of course that would mean it's kind of a stupid thing for the leader of the free world to be focusing his efforts on as well.

And there's the small technical problem of whether it's Constitutional. And also the fact that it was done as a matter of policy in order to avoid worrying about the will of congress.

There are bigger issues at play here than birth control pills.

alkemical
02-16-2012, 08:33 AM
It's a good example of how the employer-provided insurance model of healthcare allows insane costs to be hidden.

Either way, a person is paying $100 for what they used to pay $5 for. If you put that on the price tag on the bottle, people would be up in arms. But if you let it all happen behind the scenes with the magic of 'insurance' they don't even care. Either way they're paying the bill though.

It's a factor based upon the war on drugs also, don't forget that colossal waste of $. Which leads to privatizing prisons, which after yr 3 - the costs escalate beyond what "State" run prisons run. Interesting, that you know have the US's largets privateer of prisons, offering to buy up 48 states prisons..that same company - pushes for the continuation of the drug war using lobby $'s.

houghtam
02-16-2012, 08:39 AM
It's a factor based upon the war on drugs also, don't forget that colossal waste of $. Which leads to privatizing prisons, which after yr 3 - the costs escalate beyond what "State" run prisons run. Interesting, that you know have the US's largets privateer of prisons, offering to buy up 48 states prisons..that same company - pushes for the continuation of the drug war using lobby $'s.

But without the war on drugs, how would our prisons ever get full? Think man, think!

alkemical
02-16-2012, 08:41 AM
But without the war on drugs, how would our prisons ever get full? Think man, think!

Hey, it's the NEW emerging labor market (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/25inmates.html?pagewanted=all)! Does this count towards "jobs saved", or lowering the "unemployment rate"?

TonyR
02-16-2012, 11:14 AM
The comparison between Obama/Romney and Clinton/Dole is interesting...

Like Obama, Bill Clinton began the 1996 cycle on the heels of an epic midterm election defeat and with the opposition party convinced it had found the formula to defeat him. But the Republican Party’s image plunged in 1995 and early ’96, the product of overreach by its new congressional majority and the toxic antics of a House speaker named Newt Gingrich, while the economy — and Clinton’s approval scores — improved. By the time Bob Dole, who suffered an embarrassing series of early primary season defeats (including to Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire), finally secured the GOP nomination he was running far behind Clinton. And despite predictions throughout the spring of ’96 that the race would ultimately tighten, it never really did. After his defeat, Dole was known to lament that the election had come two years too late. Obama’s recent gains are tenuous, but it seems a lot more likely now than it did a few months ago that the 2012 Republican nominee will end up saying the same thing.http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/the_gops_emerging_bob_dole_problem/singleton/

Cito Pelon
02-16-2012, 08:10 PM
The comparison between Obama/Romney and Clinton/Dole is interesting...

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/the_gops_emerging_bob_dole_problem/singleton/

This kind of fits in with your earlier post about Norquist's speech at the 2012 CPAC where he says don't let the Democrats be parasites on our GOP plan to cut spending. Clinton sort of co-opted Newt's "Compact With America" plan or whatever it was called.

Norquist and SOME of the GOP have this idea that they should stymie any kind of bipartisan plan so they look like "it's all our plan", vote us into the majority every dang where because only we the ultra-rightwingers can get this country moving in the right direction.

Thank goodness for Boehner and Obama working hard together, grabbing guys by the lapels and shaking some sense into them, telling them the country can't get stuck in a stagnation ultra-Left vs. ultra-Right battle.

We certainly need some more of the same give and take between the two sides of the aisle to move forward.

That One Guy
02-16-2012, 11:27 PM
It's a factor based upon the war on drugs also, don't forget that colossal waste of $. Which leads to privatizing prisons, which after yr 3 - the costs escalate beyond what "State" run prisons run. Interesting, that you know have the US's largets privateer of prisons, offering to buy up 48 states prisons..that same company - pushes for the continuation of the drug war using lobby $'s.

Convicted felons are the only people allowed to be legally enslaved according to the constitution. Rather than letting them play in the yard, turn it into the biggest gardens around and make them work it with forks. They'll stay busy, not want to go back, and you can offset a lot of the costs of the prison by labor.

Prisons don't have to cost a dime. We're just a nation of vaginas unwilling to make tough decisions. They should cut prisons' budgets with a broad sword and make them figure it out. Start balancing the budget on the backs of felons then work to other things.

houghtam
02-17-2012, 01:36 AM
Convicted felons are the only people allowed to be legally enslaved according to the constitution. Rather than letting them play in the yard, turn it into the biggest gardens around and make them work it with forks. They'll stay busy, not want to go back, and you can offset a lot of the costs of the prison by labor.

Prisons don't have to cost a dime. We're just a nation of vaginas unwilling to make tough decisions. They should cut prisons' budgets with a broad sword and make them figure it out. Start balancing the budget on the backs of felons then work to other things.

Or we could just stop putting people in prisons for minor drug offenses and non-violent crimes.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 06:40 AM
Or we could just stop putting people in prisons for minor drug offenses and non-violent crimes.

Ehh, change the laws. Until they do, I don't want to be paying for criminals to sit around all day. Make them earn their own keep.

To stop prosecuting crimes just because they're expensive to enforce is silly, though.

bowtown
02-17-2012, 07:10 AM
Ehh, change the laws. Until they do, I don't want to be paying for criminals to sit around all day. Make them earn their own keep.

To stop prosecuting crimes just because they're expensive to enforce is silly, though.

"crimes"

alkemical
02-17-2012, 07:11 AM
Convicted felons are the only people allowed to be legally enslaved according to the constitution. Rather than letting them play in the yard, turn it into the biggest gardens around and make them work it with forks. They'll stay busy, not want to go back, and you can offset a lot of the costs of the prison by labor.

Prisons don't have to cost a dime. We're just a nation of vaginas unwilling to make tough decisions. They should cut prisons' budgets with a broad sword and make them figure it out. Start balancing the budget on the backs of felons then work to other things.

It doesn't work that way, and they will always cost money. Just how and what it is.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 07:16 AM
Ehh, change the laws. Until they do, I don't want to be paying for criminals to sit around all day. Make them earn their own keep.

To stop prosecuting crimes just because they're expensive to enforce is silly, though.


You really need to spend more time learning about the prison industry. I've just "been in it" for the last year - so that's how i've been exposed to it.

If you change the laws, you reduce cost across much more than just "beds" at a prison.

Drek
02-17-2012, 08:06 AM
Ehh, change the laws. Until they do, I don't want to be paying for criminals to sit around all day. Make them earn their own keep.

To stop prosecuting crimes just because they're expensive to enforce is silly, though.

The only things that should be deemed "crimes" in this country are when you impinge on another person's rights.

Use insider trading to loot a person's 401k? Should be a felony with more serious penalties than it currently has.

Physically assault a person? Already a felony, works.

Shooting yourself up with H because daddy didn't hug you enough? Keep at it champ, eventually you'll do enough to improve all our lives.

We need to decriminalize recreational narcotics use and at the same time take away the tax payer funded support structure. Let people know that we don't care if they head down the slippery slope but that no one is going to be there to pull them back up.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 08:17 AM
The only things that should be deemed "crimes" in this country are when you impinge on another person's rights.

Use insider trading to loot a person's 401k? Should be a felony with more serious penalties than it currently has.

Physically assault a person? Already a felony, works.

Shooting yourself up with H because daddy didn't hug you enough? Keep at it champ, eventually you'll do enough to improve all our lives.

We need to decriminalize recreational narcotics use and at the same time take away the tax payer funded support structure. Let people know that we don't care if they head down the slippery slope but that no one is going to be there to pull them back up.


Some people have pointed me to Spain's policies, noting that their change in stance has actually improved their problems dramatically.

But there's too much $$$ to be made in guns trade, prisons, contractors (vendors/services/products) than there is in any REAL solution to the problems that don't involve "revenue generation".

alkemical
02-17-2012, 08:18 AM
This Is What The House Panel Testifying About Birth Control And Women’s Reproductive Rights Looks Like (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-is-what-the-house-panel-testifying-about-birt)

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/2/16/15/enhanced-buzz-662-1329425421-0.jpg

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 08:30 AM
The only things that should be deemed "crimes" in this country are when you impinge on another person's rights.

Use insider trading to loot a person's 401k? Should be a felony with more serious penalties than it currently has.

Physically assault a person? Already a felony, works.

Shooting yourself up with H because daddy didn't hug you enough? Keep at it champ, eventually you'll do enough to improve all our lives.

We need to decriminalize recreational narcotics use and at the same time take away the tax payer funded support structure. Let people know that we don't care if they head down the slippery slope but that no one is going to be there to pull them back up.

Not necessarily opposed to this, so long as it's intellectually consistent. You go this route, and you may as well disband the FDA (at least as we know it)

You can't keep medicinal drugs from the public in the name of safety while saying when it comes to the recreational kind, anything goes.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 08:53 AM
Not necessarily opposed to this, so long as it's intellectually consistent. You go this route, and you may as well disband the FDA (at least as we know it)

You can't keep medicinal drugs from the public in the name of safety while saying when it comes to the recreational kind, anything goes.

The FDA operates in adherence to Corporate interest.

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."[32]




Political contributions

Monsanto gave $186,250 to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) – 42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans. For the 2010 election cycle they gave $72,000 – 51% to Democrats, 49% to Republicans.[122]
[edit] Lobbying

The company spent $8,831,120 for lobbying in 2008. $1,492,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.[123]

Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael R. Taylor was appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration (United States) Commissioner on food safety on 7 July 2009.[124]
[edit] Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto

Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.[125] which found that "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States." This case benefitted all companies which profit from genetically modified crops, of which Monsanto is the largest.[27][125][126]
Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner before he left to work for a law firm on gaining FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone in the 1980s. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994.[27] Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Barack Obama.[127]
Dr. Michael A. Friedman was a deputy commissioner of the FDA before he was hired as a senior vice president of Monsanto.[27]
Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 to 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.[27]
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was chairman and chief executive officer of G. D. Searle & Co., which Monsanto purchased in 1985. Rumsfeld personally made at least $12 million USD from the transaction.[27]

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 09:06 AM
The FDA operates in adherence to Corporate interest.

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."[32]




Political contributions

Monsanto gave $186,250 to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) – 42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans. For the 2010 election cycle they gave $72,000 – 51% to Democrats, 49% to Republicans.[122]
[edit] Lobbying

The company spent $8,831,120 for lobbying in 2008. $1,492,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.[123]

Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael R. Taylor was appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration (United States) Commissioner on food safety on 7 July 2009.[124]
[edit] Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto

Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.[125] which found that "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States." This case benefitted all companies which profit from genetically modified crops, of which Monsanto is the largest.[27][125][126]
Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner before he left to work for a law firm on gaining FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone in the 1980s. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994.[27] Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Barack Obama.[127]
Dr. Michael A. Friedman was a deputy commissioner of the FDA before he was hired as a senior vice president of Monsanto.[27]
Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 to 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.[27]
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was chairman and chief executive officer of G. D. Searle & Co., which Monsanto purchased in 1985. Rumsfeld personally made at least $12 million USD from the transaction.[27]

Yeah, welcome to the USofA. Where Frankenfood is the highest of evils. But actual Frankenstein (genetic/emryonic) hey, that's awesome.

Drek
02-17-2012, 10:20 AM
Not necessarily opposed to this, so long as it's intellectually consistent. You go this route, and you may as well disband the FDA (at least as we know it)

You can't keep medicinal drugs from the public in the name of safety while saying when it comes to the recreational kind, anything goes.

The FDA needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Instead of being a corporate advocate masquerading as a regulatory agency it should be a real regulatory agency.

It's job would be to make sure companies do not lie to the citizenry as it pertains to food and drugs. If your food contains tons of nasty **** then it needs to be listed on there with a reference to further information on what exactly that nasty **** is. Just like we handle MSDS's in every other industry.

If Johnny ****wad wants to drink a gallon of bleach he can do so at his own discretion. Clorox isn't going to be held liable because they slapped a label on it that says "BLEACH CONTAINS ****ING BLEACH RETARD" and include all the relevant safety information, i.e. drink bleach and you probably die.

Same if Johnny ****wad wants to eat food high in high fructose corn syrup he should have every right to do so, with the provider of his one way ticket to diabetes letting him know up front what is in it and where he can learn about how much it will **** him up.

So if Johnny wants to roll on some crystal meth then go for it, just make sure it's clear that on top of getting you high as a kite ice will also make you look like the living ****ing dead and make all your teeth fall out. Simple as that.

Making people deal with the reprocussions of their choices would get a lot of the "Mommy and Daddy don't love me enough, only Linkin Park understands me!" angst users who then turn into junkies to never go down that path in the first place. The people with real problems will off themselves or commit a real crime soon enough and we'll deal with them then.

If you couldn't tell I also think the death penalty in cases of obvious guilt for anything directly violating another's core rights (murder and rape) would be a massive improvement. And by death penalty I don't mean you sit on death row for 40 years going through multiple appeals processes. You're convicted, you have to apply for appeal, if the next court up wants to hear your case than so be it, but as soon as a court says "sorry bud, its obvious you did it and we aren't wasting our time" then it's time for you to get a bullet put in your head. No spending thousands on lethal injection. No spending hundreds on the juice needed to fry someone in the chair. Just thumb a low cost .44 round into the chamber, put it up against his skull and save us all the hassle.

The American ideal is a society that provides a social safety net for all those who deserve it, allowing us to fairly and honestly work together to find our own ideal way of life. You're born with the right to take part in that hunt and you lose that right when you disrespect someone else's. Other than that do whatever the **** makes you happy.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 10:28 AM
^Which is why our first priority as citizens should be to write an amendment to the Constitution stating that corporations are not people and do have the rights of persons, our campaigns will be publicly funded, and K Street is out of business. As TR said, "Corporations have a right to justice. They do not have the right to a vote."

Until we do that, you can assume that the FDA, and every other regulatory arm of government, is corporate owned.

Drek
02-17-2012, 10:33 AM
^Which is why our first priority as citizens should be to write an amendment to the Constitution stating that corporations are not people and do have the rights of persons, our campaigns will be publicly funded, and K Street is out of business. As TR said, "Corporations have a right to justice. They do not have the right to a vote."

Until we do that, you can assume that the FDA, and every other regulatory arm of government, is corporate owned.

Honestly, and I know most people hate to hear this, we need to stop amending the constitution and instead start a new one. The old one is too antiquated and needs a major revision. The core principles can remain, but it does not handle 90% of the issues that face a far more technologically, scientifically, and globally advanced society.

From the University of Chicago's paper The Endurance of National Constitutions:
Jefferson derided those who “look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.”

He even proposed an expiration date – one of nineteen years, a figure he came to from studying a set of actuarial
tables.

The core framers of our current constitution never meant for us to hang onto it like a binky for centuries to come. They expected BETTER of us. Not a constant cow towing to their supposed infinite wisdom.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 10:36 AM
^Which is why our first priority as citizens should be to write an amendment to the Constitution stating that corporations are not people and do have the rights of persons, our campaigns will be publicly funded, and K Street is out of business. As TR said, "Corporations have a right to justice. They do not have the right to a vote."

Until we do that, you can assume that the FDA, and every other regulatory arm of government, is corporate owned.

Blaming corporations for buying a government that's for sale doesn't help. You're treating the symptom, not the disease.

Government will be corrupted for as long as it's profitable to do so. The answer is to stop giving the government so much power over who wins and who loses. But that req's getting them out of people's day to day decisions. On that point, we're headed in the wrong direction.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 10:53 AM
Blaming corporations for buying a government that's for sale doesn't help. You're treating the symptom, not the disease.

Government will be corrupted for as long as it's profitable to do so. The answer is to stop giving the government so much power over who wins and who loses. But that req's getting them out of people's day to day decisions. On that point, we're headed in the wrong direction.

Size of government is immaterial. It's a tool that needs to fit the job required of it. Who owns it, however, is of fundamental importance. A lot of people in the modern era have stumbled into a kind of warped syllogism which concludes - capitalism is good, ergo everything should be judged by its monetary value and everything is for sale. If we could just flush that stupid paradigm out of the social consciousness we could move on to (perhaps) a more enlightened age.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 10:55 AM
Honestly, and I know most people hate to hear this, we need to stop amending the constitution and instead start a new one. The old one is too antiquated and needs a major revision. The core principles can remain, but it does not handle 90% of the issues that face a far more technologically, scientifically, and globally advanced society.

From the University of Chicago's paper The Endurance of National Constitutions:


The core framers of our current constitution never meant for us to hang onto it like a binky for centuries to come. They expected BETTER of us. Not a constant cow towing to their supposed infinite wisdom.

I agree. An even better solution. Call a constitutional convention.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 10:59 AM
Size of government is immaterial. It's a tool that needs to fit the job required of it. Who owns it, however, is of fundamental importance. A lot of people in the modern era have stumbled into a kind of warped syllogism which concludes - capitalism is good, ergo everything should be judged by its monetary value and everything is for sale. If we could just flush that stupid paradigm out of the social consciousness we could move on to (perhaps) a more enlightened age.

Come on, this is basically saying that so long as we find politicians who don't like money, fancy things and nice vacation homes, everything will be just fine. You're just dressing up utopianism with cliches.

Politicians like money and nice stuff just like everyone else. So long as they can be of service to the people who deliver it to them, they will.

Capitalism isn't good or bad. It just is.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:06 AM
Yeah, welcome to the USofA. Where Frankenfood is the highest of evils. But actual Frankenstein (genetic/emryonic) hey, that's awesome.

Deflection = fail.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:07 AM
^Which is why our first priority as citizens should be to write an amendment to the Constitution stating that corporations are not people and do have the rights of persons, our campaigns will be publicly funded, and K Street is out of business. As TR said, "Corporations have a right to justice. They do not have the right to a vote."

Until we do that, you can assume that the FDA, and every other regulatory arm of government, is corporate owned.

Funny how regulations & anti-trust are tools used to establish fixed markets for corporations who write the legislation.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:09 AM
Honestly, and I know most people hate to hear this, we need to stop amending the constitution and instead start a new one. The old one is too antiquated and needs a major revision. The core principles can remain, but it does not handle 90% of the issues that face a far more technologically, scientifically, and globally advanced society.

From the University of Chicago's paper The Endurance of National Constitutions:


The core framers of our current constitution never meant for us to hang onto it like a binky for centuries to come. They expected BETTER of us. Not a constant cow towing to their supposed infinite wisdom.



http://www.disinfo.com/2011/08/iceland-uses-social-media-to-write-new-constitution/

Iceland Uses Social Media to Write New Constitution



&

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/the-third-constitution-of-the-united-states/

The Third Constitution Of The United States

Posted by Roger Copple on February 7, 2012

800px-Constitution_We_the_People
The Third Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the People of the United States establish this Third Constitution of the United States of North America to promote human rights, social justice, ecological wisdom, peace, and egalitarianism for the citizens of our country and ultimately to all citizens of the world.

Neighborhood togetherness and community solidarity shall be valued above individual and corporate aggrandizement that jeopardize the participatory democracy of We the People. The Earth and the world will be viewed as one organism, like the human body: the cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems have to cooperate together or else the whole organism suffers and dies. (The first U.S. government was under the Articles of Confederation. The second was implemented with the presidency of George Washington in 1789.)

Human Rights

1. We the People have a right to participate in a government that is built from the bottom-up, something that has never been tried before, instead of the usual, bureaucratic control from the top-down. However, the government built from the bottom-up, at higher levels, may make laws that affect lower levels.

2. The people have a right to change their federal government through amendments added to this Third Constitution, and the people have a right to make an entirely new constitution fairly easily, which would then be the basis for a fourth federal or national government.

3. All individuals have freedom to speak and write about their personal, political, and spiritual beliefs. They may worship God through the religion of their choice, or they may choose ethical behavior or spiritual disciplines not based on any religion.

4. Government has powers granted to it as determined by the people’s democratic decision making. Government protects the rights of individuals.

5. Individual citizens have a right to keep and bear arms if they are registered by the county and state where they live. Federal lawmakers will determine the guidelines and the maximum amount of firepower an individual may possess. A county government may further limit the federal allowances or even abolish an individual’s right to own weapons.


The above is more as brainfood - but it's interesting to think about.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:10 AM
Blaming corporations for buying a government that's for sale doesn't help. You're treating the symptom, not the disease.

Government will be corrupted for as long as it's profitable to do so. The answer is to stop giving the government so much power over who wins and who loses. But that req's getting them out of people's day to day decisions. On that point, we're headed in the wrong direction.

You need two to tango. Chicken/Egg argument.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 11:11 AM
Come on, this is basically saying that so long as we find politicians who don't like money, fancy things and nice vacation homes, everything will be just fine. You're just dressing up utopianism with cliches.

Politicians like money and nice stuff just like everyone else. So long as they can be of service to the people who deliver it to them, they will.

Capitalism isn't good or bad. It just is.

What happened after Glass-Steagle was dismantled?

See? Regulations can work.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:12 AM
Come on, this is basically saying that so long as we find politicians who don't like money, fancy things and nice vacation homes, everything will be just fine. You're just dressing up utopianism with cliches.

Politicians like money and nice stuff just like everyone else. So long as they can be of service to the people who deliver it to them, they will.

Capitalism isn't good or bad. It just is.

Oh please, that's like saying communism isn't bad. Until you fix the human problem, it's going to always turn into "what can i get away with".

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:25 AM
Oh please, that's like saying communism isn't bad. Until you fix the human problem, it's going to always turn into "what can i get away with".

Socialist Communism isn't inherently bad. It only works though if you banish self interest from human nature. Long story short, it was nice in theory. Unworkable in real life because of human nature.

Being a capitalist is really only resigning yourself to human nature.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:28 AM
What happened after Glass-Steagle was dismantled?

See? Regulations can work.

Didn't say they couldn't. I'm not anarchist. Just saying, as the founders understood, that you have to build a system that accomodates 99% of people operating in their own self interest, Because that's reality.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:29 AM
Socialist Communism isn't inherently bad. It only works though if you banish self interest from human nature. Long story short, it was nice in theory. Unworkable in real life because of human nature.

Being a capitalist is really only resigning yourself to human nature.

What's that, that screwing other people for your own gains is OK? I mean, you're stating about human nature, and then wondering why you're dick smells like ****.

I mean, the World's Religions sort of...you know, teach the opposite.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:31 AM
Didn't say they couldn't. I'm not anarchist. Just saying, as the founders understood, that you have to build a system that accomodates 99% of people operating in their own self interest, Because that's reality.

Only to YOU is that reality. You do understand that civilization & philosophies are TEAM sports, don't you?

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:32 AM
I love this hole in logic:

Human nature dicates that we're all animals and we're going to **** each other over. Therefore, we need a system that allows us to **** each other in the ass, as much as we want...you know, because we're animals. No other system works, because we're animals - so instead, i'm just going to resign the fact that i like getting ****ed in the ass, and because I get ****ed in the ass, i'm going to **** YOU in the ass.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:34 AM
You need two to tango. Chicken/Egg argument.

Yeah, not really. Political corruption has proven eternal. It was there long before Adam Smith.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Yeah, not really. Political corruption has proven eternal. It was there long before Adam Smith.

Uhm, yeah - it's a human condition/problem. That's my point dingus: Chicken/Egg.

Under your condition/logic, i have outlined a plan of great success:

Abolish Gov't, and there won't be corruption.

Doesn't seem to work like that, does it.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:38 AM
What's that, that screwing other people for your own gains is OK? I mean, you're stating about human nature, and then wondering why you're dick smells like ****.

I mean, the World's Religions sort of...you know, teach the opposite.

So you're building a system that would only work for the sincerely god-fearing. We're back to where the Isrealites shouldn't have asked for a King I guess. :)

The problem is even if 90% of people live by your ethos, the other 10% can easily destroy it for everyone. You're banishing door locks in the name of the majority not being thieves?

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Kill children = No Pedo's

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:40 AM
Uhm, yeah - it's a human condition/problem. That's my point dingus: Chicken/Egg.

Under your condition/logic, i have outlined a plan of great success:

Abolish Gov't, and there won't be corruption.

Doesn't seem to work like that, does it.

There will always be corruption. But the more power you give the collective over the individual, the more damage that corruption can do.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:40 AM
So you're building a system that would only work for the sincerely god-fearing. We're back to where the Isrealites shouldn't have asked for a King I guess. :)

The problem is even if 90% of people live by your ethos, the other 10% can easily destroy it for everyone. You're banishing door locks in the name of the majority not being thieves?

Hey, you're the one that likes those rules. You're pretty much endorsing a system where 90% of the people try to do the right thing, and 10% like ****ing everyone else over. I mean, we're talking about Capitalism right? I mean, i don't see anyone getting prosecuted for the 2008 financial crash - yet those small %'s, wrecked it for everyone else.

Whoa, holy **** - damn how'd that happen.

Old Dude
02-17-2012, 11:43 AM
So what happens if Romney takes AZ, Santorum takes Mich, Paul takes Wash, and Super Tuesday is carved up between all four of them?

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:43 AM
There will always be corruption. But the more power you give the collective over the individual, the more damage that corruption can do.

That's exactly what you're arguing for. You want greater power to be left unchecked out of some principle that people's self interest, is going to let "everything shake out". I mean, it's working out pretty well, isn't it. You have a minority, controlling the majority. The way any good system works. (top down/pyramid).

You do understand that, society sets the taboos, not the individual - right?

Once you live in society/civilization - you have to more or less "deal with it". If you don't - then move.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:44 AM
So what happens if Romney takes AZ, Santorum takes Mich, Paul takes Wash, and Super Tuesday is carved up between all four of them?

Zombie Hitler rises and the riders of the storm mount horses!

Dexter
02-17-2012, 11:47 AM
There will always be corruption. But the more power you give the collective over the individual, the more damage that corruption can do.

I may be completely off base, but isn't deregulation giving the collective power over the individual?

I mean if you deregulate everything you're giving corporations a free ride to pollute, pay whatever they want, allow them to produce faulty goods and services. Its basically giving the okay to be unethical. There has to be SOME regulation. The marketplace can regulate itself at times, but I don't believe this is a universal truth. The government is there to PROTECT the people, in which corporations are not people.

Also, I'm curious to know, if you're so PRO capitalism, would you have let the banks fail? I would have.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:49 AM
Hey, you're the one that likes those rules. You're pretty much endorsing a system where 90% of the people try to do the right thing, and 10% like ****ing everyone else over. I mean, we're talking about Capitalism right? I mean, i don't see anyone getting prosecuted for the 2008 financial crash - yet those small %'s, wrecked it for everyone else.

Whoa, holy **** - damn how'd that happen.

You can't prosecute people for doing what the rules allowed. You can work to adjust the rules. But many of the problems were a product of bad regulations dreamed up over the last 20 years. On what grounds can those same regulators now prosecute?

Old Dude
02-17-2012, 11:49 AM
Zombie Hitler rises and the riders of the storm mount horses!

What? You haven't heard already?

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 11:51 AM
I may be completely off base, but isn't deregulation giving the collective power over the individual?

I mean if you deregulate everything you're giving corporations to pollute, pay whatever they want, allowing them to produce faulty goods and services. Its basically giving the okay to be unethical. There has to be SOME regulation. The marketplace can regulate itself at times, but I don't believe this is a universal truth. The government is there to PROTECT the people, in which corporations are not people.

Also, I'm curious to know, if you're so PRO capitalism, would you have let the banks fail? I would have.

This is a fundamental misreading. I'm not anti-regulation or pro-capitalism.

Capitalism is.

And because of this, regulation is necessary. Unfortunately regulation can be done poorly, And in many cases can become worse than the problem they were built to address.

In everything there is a balance.

Dexter
02-17-2012, 11:53 AM
You can't prosecute people for doing what the rules allowed. You can work to adjust the rules. But many of the problems were a product of bad regulations dreamed up over the last 20 years. On what grounds can those same regulators now prosecute?

How about starting with **** that we CAN prosecute?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-usa-housing-defaults-idUSTRE81G04M20120217?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true


We probably won't though because we'd rather bust harmless Joe Blow for smoking pot, over someone who illegally cost somebody their home. But that's just capitalism right?

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:54 AM
You can't prosecute people for doing what the rules allowed. You can work to adjust the rules. But many of the problems were a product of bad regulations dreamed up over the last 20 years. On what grounds can those same regulators now prosecute?

Actually it was the DEregulations that allowed it to happen.

Dexter
02-17-2012, 11:54 AM
]This is a fundamental misreading. I'm not anti-regulation or pro-capitalism. [/B]

Capitalism is.

And because of this, regulation is necessary. Unfortunately regulation can be done poorly, And in many cases can become worse than the problem they were built to address.

In everything there is a balance.

I guess I fail to understand what you're saying then. I thought you were making the argument for capitalism in its current form.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:55 AM
What? You haven't heard already?

No, my horse isn't ready yet...dammit.

Drek
02-17-2012, 11:55 AM
Come on, this is basically saying that so long as we find politicians who don't like money, fancy things and nice vacation homes, everything will be just fine. You're just dressing up utopianism with cliches.

Politicians like money and nice stuff just like everyone else. So long as they can be of service to the people who deliver it to them, they will.

Capitalism isn't good or bad. It just is.
I think this viewpoint of government is inherently flawed.

This nation was founded by the most successful among our society, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. all putting forth new ideas to make a better life for everyone involved. They had a real sense of social responsibility.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't even particularly wealthy as an individual, yet he was as strong an advocate for social responsibility by those who can on behalf of those who can't as anyone you'll ever find.

Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt were both born into exceedingly wealthy families and instead of using that wealth to simply beget more wealth they dedicated themselves to a life of higher calling whereby they could improve the conditions of their fellow Americans.

John F. Kennedy spoke to this, himself from an incredibly wealthy family, when he said the line "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

The very concept of a representative republic relies heavily on this sense of social responsibility by those who "have" towards those who "have not". Be that wealth, great intelligence or insight into a particular field, or even sheer strength.

The problem isn't with human nature or our governmental system. The problem is with a society that has minimized the governmental system in favor of the economic system, capitalism, whereby "getting yours" is all that matters. That is the rotten pit steadily infecting the rest of this nation. That is the real condition and everything else is mere symptoms.

How do you fix it? By stripping away the layers of puss that hides the poisoned arrowhead burried deep within the body of this country. Take away the veils of secrecy that corporate raiders hide behind, that corrupt politicians hide behind, that lobbyists hide behind, and that all of them in concert spin to keep our view shrouded. Make everyone play by the same, simple, clear rules.

If you want a better government you take away the ability for a corporation to bet against it's own clients. You take way the need for a doctor to also be a high level accountant to conduct business. You take away the need for every employer no matter the field to have staff who manage healthcare. You take away the special exceptions for Wall St. employees where their intentional negligence has no penalties and their overt felonies carry slap on the wrist penalties. You take away the special provisions that allow our congresspeople to commit what for anyone else is a felony.

You strip away the layers of **** that this infection has spewed into our society and you keep it from being able to do it again. Quickly you would starve it out and find a cleaner, more effective government populated almost entirely by people who want nothing more than to make America a better place. The ones looking to line their own pockets will keep to private industry, where they should be.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 11:56 AM
This is a fundamental misreading. I'm not anti-regulation or pro-capitalism.

Capitalism is.

And because of this, regulation is necessary. Unfortunately regulation can be done poorly, And in many cases can become worse than the problem they were built to address.

In everything there is a balance.

Yeah, we've all been saying that (bolded).

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 12:00 PM
So what happens if Romney takes AZ, Santorum takes Mich, Paul takes Wash, and Super Tuesday is carved up between all four of them?

I'll pop open some champagne?

What's your point? ;D

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 12:02 PM
I may be completely off base, but isn't deregulation giving the collective power over the individual?

I mean if you deregulate everything you're giving corporations a free ride to pollute, pay whatever they want, allow them to produce faulty goods and services. Its basically giving the okay to be unethical. There has to be SOME regulation. The marketplace can regulate itself at times, but I don't believe this is a universal truth. The government is there to PROTECT the people, in which corporations are not people.

Also, I'm curious to know, if you're so PRO capitalism, would you have let the banks fail? I would have.

We had complete deregulation in America. It was the 1890s. We call it "The Robber Baron" era.

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 12:03 PM
Actually it was the DEregulations that allowed it to happen.

Tiy can split that hair any way you like. Some of the worst offenses were by Quasi-government agencies. Walking regulations, if you will.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 12:04 PM
Actually it was the DEregulations that allowed it to happen.

The former CEO of Citibank was on Charlie Rose last week saying that dismantling Glass-Steagle was the most bone-headed mistake we ever made. And here we have the Tea Party whackos crying out for more of the same.

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe...

BroncoBeavis
02-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Yeah, we've all been saying that (bolded).

Good for you. I think you'll find we agree on more than we disagree. I think most of your arguments are against your preconceptions of what I believe vs what I actually do.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 12:09 PM
Tiy can split that hair any way you like. Some of the worst offenses were by Quasi-government agencies. Walking regulations, if you will.

You don't like chicken/egg arguments - and that's what we have. Splitting hairs what you want to do. I've already cited that Corporations have written legislation that has corned the market in their* favor.

You can't have one without the other.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 12:10 PM
The former CEO of Citibank was on Charlie Rose last week saying that dismantling Glass-Steagle was the most bone-headed mistake we ever made. And here we have the Tea Party whackos crying out for more of the same.

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe...

Like it or not - we're going to be more feudalistic for a little bit.

alkemical
02-17-2012, 12:10 PM
Good for you. I think you'll find we agree on more than we disagree. I think most of your arguments are against your preconceptions of what I believe vs what I actually do.

Ditto.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 12:13 PM
At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

alkemical
02-17-2012, 12:21 PM
Apple tells us we don't have skills - SMB's are telling us we don't have skills:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/16/smallbusiness/manufacturing_jobs/index.htm

Desperately seeking Americans for factory jobs

Winslow's been trying to add 12 more workers to his staff of 42 to meet the increased demand, but he's struggling.

"I'm facing a real conundrum," he said. "There are so many unemployed people in the country. But I can't find the skill sets that I need. I would hire tomorrow if I could."

For more than a year, Winslow has been looking for manual machinists, quality control inspectors and machinists trained to use computer-controlled systems.

He's advertised the jobs locally as well on popular online recruiting websites, such as Monster.com (MWW).

He said he may be forced to hire people who are not fully skilled, and then train them.

"I am coming to the conclusion that this [situation] has become the new normal," said Winslow. "Being a machinist once was considered a respectable trade. But young Americans just don't consider manufacturing to be a sexy vocation."

Old Dude
02-17-2012, 02:58 PM
I'll pop open some champagne?

What's your point? ;D

I have no point. I'm just asking for the opinions of others on what that would mean for the GOP nomination and in general.

bendog
02-17-2012, 03:13 PM
I have no point. I'm just asking for the opinions of others on what that would mean for the GOP nomination and in general.

I googled this earlier this week, in general as to the gop's procedure. The gop has a lot fewer "super delegates" who are free to vote for anyone at the conventions than do the dims, and have 3 per state. However, each state party is free to allocate delegates as it sees fit. Some might not even allocate on a caucus vote, esp is turnout was so light. We're seeing results turn on a hundred voters or so with ten thousand or so total votes, so voters who have politics far to the right of even the middle have an effect greater than they'd have in the general. (not that i oppose anyone having views so long as they're legal, or at least no more illegal than legal pot and drugs)

And each state is free to say delegates are pledged foreover, or just one ballot, and all ranges in between.

Just to be honest. I'm more likely to vote for Romney than obama. I might could vote for newt, but he's done. I'll most likely cast a protest vote for a third party.

Rohirrim
02-17-2012, 03:46 PM
I have no point. I'm just asking for the opinions of others on what that would mean for the GOP nomination and in general.

It means the GOP convention would be highly entertaining.

Old Dude
02-17-2012, 04:38 PM
Well, it's too early to tell, but last time I looked, Romney was leading in Arizona, Santorum was pulling ahead in Michigan and Ohio, Gingrich was doing well in Oklahoma and Paul could pull out Washington state and North Dakota.

Romney and Paul are apparently the only ones on the ballot in Virginia, and I'm assuming Romney will be the favorite in Mass. So it does look like a bit of a jumble at this point with Romney gaining a plurality, but losing more momentum every day.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 07:18 PM
It doesn't work that way, and they will always cost money. Just how and what it is.

What a useless post.

We could execute everyone sent to prison and charge admission to see them die. Then maybe they could make money.

Yes, I'm being facetious but your response was ignorant. Even if they will always cost money, they could cost LESS money.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 07:20 PM
The only things that should be deemed "crimes" in this country are when you impinge on another person's rights.

Use insider trading to loot a person's 401k? Should be a felony with more serious penalties than it currently has.

Physically assault a person? Already a felony, works.

Shooting yourself up with H because daddy didn't hug you enough? Keep at it champ, eventually you'll do enough to improve all our lives.

We need to decriminalize recreational narcotics use and at the same time take away the tax payer funded support structure. Let people know that we don't care if they head down the slippery slope but that no one is going to be there to pull them back up.

I wasn't just saying to change the laws to have a simple retort. I didn't really think about it until Ron Paul mentioned that it's something the Fed gov't shouldn't be involved in but I agree. Whether states want to prosecute it or not should be their decision but it should definitely be taken out of federal hands.

I'm very much for letting druggies OD then dumping them in a landfill somewhere.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 07:35 PM
I'm not a man of means and even I look down upon those in the worst parts of society and think they're not worthy of my assistance. Imagine what those who were raised on silver spoons must think of them.

Fix our poor and I think people will be more willing to contribute to the country. As long as the poor are just as interested in milking things as everyone else, noone will take pity upon them nor willingly offer them assistance. There was a time when laziness would lead to your demise. These days, it leads to you just hanging out in the safety net of society. Too many are congregating there and I'd rather cut the net than bother with trying to pick through the pile.

Old Dude
02-17-2012, 10:17 PM
I'm not a man of means and even I look down upon those in the worst parts of society and think they're not worthy of my assistance. Imagine what those who were raised on silver spoons must think of them.


They are probably more educated than you are and not nearly as many of them walk on their knuckles.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 10:37 PM
They are probably more educated than you are and not nearly as many of them walk on their knuckles.

Uhh... congrats on the fierce comeback?

There's no excuse to be poor in today's society. If you're one of those addicted to poverty and living your life on social aid, I look down upon you. You've wasted your life and made bad decisions you never learned from.

It is what it is. Doesn't change the fact that once the leaches of society are taken care of, we can begin to help those that truly need help.

Cito Pelon
02-17-2012, 10:55 PM
Uhh... congrats on the fierce comeback?

There's no excuse to be poor in today's society. If you're one of those addicted to poverty and living your life on social aid, I look down upon you. You've wasted your life and made bad decisions you never learned from.

It is what it is. Doesn't change the fact that once the leaches of society are taken care of, we can begin to help those that truly need help.

So how do you propose to take care of these leaches of society?

bowtown
02-17-2012, 10:58 PM
So how do you propose to take care of these leaches of society?

Gas chambers, duh.

bowtown
02-17-2012, 10:59 PM
Uhh... congrats on the fierce comeback?

There's no excuse to be poor in today's society. If you're one of those addicted to poverty and living your life on social aid, I look down upon you. You've wasted your life and made bad decisions you never learned from.

It is what it is. Doesn't change the fact that once the leaches of society are taken care of, we can begin to help those that truly need help.

You should take a stroll outside of your tiny little life experience sometime. Think your eyes would be opened.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 11:11 PM
So how do you propose to take care of these leaches of society?

Sometimes you just have to throw a person in the water so they can prove to themselves that they can swim.

Archer81
02-17-2012, 11:13 PM
So how do you propose to take care of these leaches of society?


Borrow money from china to give them food stamps.

Duh.

:Broncos:

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 11:13 PM
You should take a stroll outside of your tiny little life experience sometime. Think your eyes would be opened.

Elaborate, please.

I want to know if this is a hollow statement or if you do sincerely know me, my past, and truly have an idea of what I have or have not seen.

bowtown
02-17-2012, 11:15 PM
Elaborate, please.

I want to know if this is a hollow statement or if you do sincerely know me, my past, and truly have an idea of what I have or have not seen.

I don't know you at all, but your statements speak volumes.

That One Guy
02-17-2012, 11:36 PM
I don't know you at all, but your statements speak volumes.

Humor me. What do they tell you?

alkemical
02-18-2012, 07:13 AM
What a useless post.

We could execute everyone sent to prison and charge admission to see them die. Then maybe they could make money.

Yes, I'm being facetious but your response was ignorant. Even if they will always cost money, they could cost LESS money.

The whole thing is funded by tax $. So when Corr_Industries "makes a profit" - by making desks, chairs, etc by selling it to other state industries, those aren't real profits. In addition, the "wage" paid to prisoners - is also "taxpayer $". When they deduct the "fees" for their stay (this is how it's done where i live), out of the "paycheck" - it is still all taxpayer $.

When you look @ the prison labor used by boeing & at&t, they aren't really being paid by those companies, they're still being paid by the state.

Really, dig into how prisons work...it's interesting.

ps - you're welcome.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 08:17 AM
The whole thing is funded by tax $. So when Corr_Industries "makes a profit" - by making desks, chairs, etc by selling it to other state industries, those aren't real profits. In addition, the "wage" paid to prisoners - is also "taxpayer $". When they deduct the "fees" for their stay (this is how it's done where i live), out of the "paycheck" - it is still all taxpayer $.

When you look @ the prison labor used by boeing & at&t, they aren't really being paid by those companies, they're still being paid by the state.

Really, dig into how prisons work...it's interesting.

ps - you're welcome.

So... which part of making the prisoners work and taking their money are you missing? The making them produce... or the seizure of their money?

Some of the men could produce food. Some furniture. Others...? It's really not that hard of a concept.

Rohirrim
02-18-2012, 09:24 AM
Uhh... congrats on the fierce comeback?

There's no excuse to be poor in today's society. If you're one of those addicted to poverty and living your life on social aid, I look down upon you. You've wasted your life and made bad decisions you never learned from.

It is what it is. Doesn't change the fact that once the leaches of society are taken care of, we can begin to help those that truly need help.

Other than we're living through the worst recession/depression in the last 70 years. Yeah, but besides that...


Are there really people like this out there? Are you ****ting me?

houghtam
02-18-2012, 09:31 AM
Other than we're living through the worst recession/depression in the last 70 years. Yeah, but besides that...


Are there really people like this out there? Are you ****ting me?

There will always be heartless people. Just like there will always be ignorant people, racist people, and conservatives.

TonyR
02-18-2012, 10:14 AM
There's no excuse to be poor in today's society.

Wow. There's also no excuse for your apparent level of ignorance. Educate thyself. At least at the rudimentary level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 10:53 AM
Other than we're living through the worst recession/depression in the last 70 years. Yeah, but besides that...


Are there really people like this out there? Are you ****ting me?

If I didn't have better things to do on a sunny Saturday afternoon, I'd go find you articles that have been coming out for a long time where people are wanted for industries (particularly machinists) but they can find no qualified candidate. The economy has had plenty of opportunities if people are educated and willing. Those without skills got hit the hardest. They're also the easiest to look at and identify where they went wrong.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 10:54 AM
Wow. There's also no excuse for your apparent level of ignorance. Educate thyself. At least at the rudimentary level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty

I know the basics of the cycle. I don't feel like reading that today. What prevents someone from escaping that cycle, though? I mean, literally NO ONE makes it out, right?

Or are there some escaping it by making good decisions and others stuck in it that didn't make such good decisions.

So you want me to save those who didn't make good decisions again. We're back where we started.

Cito Pelon
02-18-2012, 11:15 AM
Sometimes you just have to throw a person in the water so they can prove to themselves that they can swim.

Yeah, well, that's a fine theory, but Conservatives tend to lump everybody that's on Federal benefits into the "leaches on society" category.

Conservatives want to cut entitlements drastically, but aren't willing to tax millionaires. It's fine with me to slow down entitlements, but at the same time a guy like Mitt Romney should not be paying only 15% to the IRS on $42 million income.

Also, the wealthiest are also the biggest tax cheats, hiding money overseas as much as they can while also paying a lower percentage to the IRS than a middle class family.

There has to be a little of this, little of that from everybody.

Cito Pelon
02-18-2012, 11:29 AM
Borrow money from china to give them food stamps.

Duh.

:Broncos:

Hey, whoever be it Dem or GOP that can get the economy moving with a multi-pronged attack that addresses a better-skilled workforce, streamlined government, bringing jobs back home from formerly out-sourced, I'm all for it.

Too often I see you right-wingers not willing to work together in the center to actually accomplish something, you don't have all the answers. Same as the left-wingers don't have all the answers, there has to be some give and take, that's how we move forward.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 12:19 PM
Yeah, well, that's a fine theory, but Conservatives tend to lump everybody that's on Federal benefits into the "leaches on society" category.

Conservatives want to cut entitlements drastically, but aren't willing to tax millionaires. It's fine with me to slow down entitlements, but at the same time a guy like Mitt Romney should not be paying only 15% to the IRS on $42 million income.

Also, the wealthiest are also the biggest tax cheats, hiding money overseas as much as they can while also paying a lower percentage to the IRS than a middle class family.

There has to be a little of this, little of that from everybody.

Once they find a scheme that can stop the outsourcing and hiding money overseas, I say let loose. In the meantime, however, there doesn't seem to be a simple solution that will ensure the piles of money that are currently hidden offshore aren't lost from US markets forever. That's my only concern and what I think leads to be a big disconnect for many. It's the same reason why I don't think you can harass employers too much right now. If we drive them and all their toys elsewhere, it doesn't help solve the problem. Once we limit the options to something where the solution isn't worse than the problem, the people can begin to take power back from those currently holding us collectively by the balls.

And the leaches on society I reference are those with no means to an end from the social welfare. If someone needs help, that's fine. They just have to have a plan. Those living month to month on social dollars and have no other outlook for the rest of their existence should be forced to stand on their own two feet or go become worm food.

I believe that as long as a child is going hungry, no able adult should be fed by the government. Temporary assistance I can understand but long-term is just unacceptable.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 12:22 PM
Hey, whoever be it Dem or GOP that can get the economy moving with a multi-pronged attack that addresses a better-skilled workforce, streamlined government, bringing jobs back home from formerly out-sourced, I'm all for it.

Too often I see you right-wingers not willing to work together in the center to actually accomplish something, you don't have all the answers. Same as the left-wingers don't have all the answers, there has to be some give and take, that's how we move forward.

Currently the country is barreling down a mountain pass at 100+MPH and many of us think there's a fork in the road ahead that we better make sure we're on the right side of. Rs and Ds keep grabbing the wheel and swearing they know the right way but there's some of us that'd prefer just to put the brakes on everything until we're sure we're even headed in the right direction. Compromising by driving closer to the right than the other guy would like isn't an option if one side of that fork just leads to a cliff. I think it leads to a cliff. The acceptable options to me are either put the brakes on entirely and talk it out or go the direction I think is safe.

Cito Pelon
02-18-2012, 01:26 PM
Currently the country is barreling down a mountain pass at 100+MPH and many of us think there's a fork in the road ahead that we better make sure we're on the right side of. Rs and Ds keep grabbing the wheel and swearing they know the right way but there's some of us that'd prefer just to put the brakes on everything until we're sure we're even headed in the right direction. Compromising by driving closer to the right than the other guy would like isn't an option if one side of that fork just leads to a cliff. I think it leads to a cliff. The acceptable options to me are either put the brakes on entirely and talk it out or go the direction I think is safe.

That's not a good idea. No way nohow. You have to push to move forward, be progressive, compromise and at least you move forward to the next compromise.

There's good ideas from from both wings that have to be incorporated into the overall plan. Stagnation is the absolute worst plan. Neither of the wings will be perfectly happy with the result, and that is perfect. The wing nut cases can bitch and moan all they want and have some input in the process, but the object is to meet in the middle.

I give huge kudos to Boehner and Obama for forcing some middle ground. They've both taken on the ultra wings of their parties and forced them to the middle as best they could.

Now another election is coming and hopefully what Boehner and Obama are trying to build continues.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 02:07 PM
That's not a good idea. No way nohow. You have to push to move forward, be progressive, compromise and at least you move forward to the next compromise.

There's good ideas from from both wings that have to be incorporated into the overall plan. Stagnation is the absolute worst plan. Neither of the wings will be perfectly happy with the result, and that is perfect. The wing nut cases can b**** and moan all they want and have some input in the process, but the object is to meet in the middle.

I give huge kudos to Boehner and Obama for forcing some middle ground. They've both taken on the ultra wings of their parties and forced them to the middle as best they could.

Now another election is coming and hopefully what Boehner and Obama are trying to build continues.

What you say makes sense. I can't necessarily say I agree but I understand the logic. Compromise is just a dangerous thing, though, as you really have to have a line drawn in the sand or you can compromise yourself to a bad situation.

If a car is worth $25K, you offer $20k, and the dealer wants $50k... you can budge from $20k but you have a line drawn where it'd be silly to keep compromising. Everything isn't solved by merely cutting the middle ground in half and shaking hands.

Cito Pelon
02-18-2012, 05:06 PM
What you say makes sense. I can't necessarily say I agree but I understand the logic. Compromise is just a dangerous thing, though, as you really have to have a line drawn in the sand or you can compromise yourself to a bad situation.

If a car is worth $25K, you offer $20k, and the dealer wants $50k... you can budge from $20k but you have a line drawn where it'd be silly to keep compromising. Everything isn't solved by merely cutting the middle ground in half and shaking hands.

Nah, compromise is how you move forward in the USA. It's not dangerous at all. I'm surprised intelligent people don't recognize this.

Play2win
02-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Compromise can also go by another word: Solution.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 08:22 PM
Nah, compromise is how you move forward in the USA. It's not dangerous at all. I'm surprised intelligent people don't recognize this.

The absolute stance you're taking is downright silly.

SoCalBronco
02-18-2012, 08:41 PM
The absolute stance you're taking is downright silly.

I don't want to speak for Cito, but I think what he might be saying is that there has been alot lost recently due to a general refusal to compromise. Both sides have had issues here, but I think most of the fault recently lies with our party (GOP).

Look at what's been lost:

1. A "grand bargain" on long term deficit reduction. Obama and Boehner had worked out the basics of a 4 trillion dollar package. This was, on balance, a great step towards debt reduction and included necessary Medicare/SS reforms. Yes, there were some tax increases that would be a part of it, but it still would be largely a conservative victory. This is probably the single biggest missed oppurtunity for Republicans in Obama's term to date. This would have been.....would have been, the most significant policy achievement for Congressional Republicans in years. But it wasn't good enough for the Tea Party wing and guys like Eric Cantor. They fail to realize that politics isn't a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as winning everything. Life doesn't work that way. We don't have the votes. That's not how reality operates. So instead of getting a very good achievement, conservatives said its not perfect so I can't support it. Stupid.

2. Tax reform. Most Congressional Republicans are unwilling to accept a replacement of the Bush tax cuts with something like Bowles-Simpson, which reduces overall rates for the vast majority of people but cuts out alot of loopholes. Since there hasn't been an agreement, the Bush tax cuts will simply expire at the end of the year (probably a good thing for deficit reduction purposes), but there will be no milder tax cut to offset the increases brought about by the sunsetting of the older cuts. There will simply be nothing...other than a return to 2001 rates. If we got on board with something like Bowles-Simpson, we'd actually be able to say we achieved another tax cut for the public and this one would be broader in its reach (in terms of more people getting the benefit of it), although nowhere near as costly. That would have been a double win...a tax cut without massive debt issues. It would have gone a long way to convincing the general public that the party believes in cutting taxes for the middle class, not just the rich while at hte same time showing you can cut taxes in a way that is fiscally responsible. Ofcourse, no one seemed to care about Bowles-Simpson when Huntsman was talking about it. Rather, morons got wrapped up in stupid stuff like 9-9-9 and all that crap.

We're not acting like a grown up party right now. You can talk about principle all you want, but sticking to principles that only 35% of the public strongly believes in doesn't get you anywhere. This election is fast becoming a replay of 1964, especially if Santorum wins. This will be quite an achievement. You take a President with consistently underwater approval ratings and let him win another term...by double digits. That's Bowlen-esque in its patheticness.

That One Guy
02-18-2012, 08:57 PM
I don't want to speak for Cito, but I think what he might be saying is that there has been alot lost recently due to a general refusal to compromise. Both sides have had issues here, but I think most of the fault recently lies with our party (GOP).

Look at what's been lost:

1. A "grand bargain" on long term deficit reduction. Obama and Boehner had worked out the basics of a 4 trillion dollar package. This was, on balance, a great step towards debt reduction and included necessary Medicare/SS reforms. Yes, there were some tax increases that would be a part of it, but it still would be largely a conservative victory. This is probably the single biggest missed oppurtunity for Republicans in Obama's term to date. This would have been.....would have been, the most significant policy achievement for Congressional Republicans in years. But it wasn't good enough for the Tea Party wing and guys like Eric Cantor. They fail to realize that politics isn't a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as winning everything. Life doesn't work that way. We don't have the votes. That's not how reality operates. So instead of getting a very good achievement, conservatives said its not perfect so I can't support it. Stupid.

2. Tax reform. Most Congressional Republicans are unwilling to accept a replacement of the Bush tax cuts with something like Bowles-Simpson, which reduces overall rates for the vast majority of people but cuts out alot of loopholes. Since there hasn't been an agreement, the Bush tax cuts will simply expire at the end of the year (probably a good thing for deficit reduction purposes), but there will be no milder tax cut to offset the increases brought about by the sunsetting of the older cuts. There will simply be nothing...other than a return to 2001 rates. If we got on board with something like Bowles-Simpson, we'd actually be able to say we achieved another tax cut for the public and this one would be broader in its reach (in terms of more people getting the benefit of it), although nowhere near as costly. That would have been a double win...a tax cut without massive debt issues. It would have gone a long way to convincing the general public that the party believes in cutting taxes for the middle class, not just the rich while at hte same time showing you can cut taxes in a way that is fiscally responsible. Ofcourse, no one seemed to care about Bowles-Simpson when Huntsman was talking about it. Rather, morons got wrapped up in stupid stuff like 9-9-9 and all that crap.

We're not acting like a grown up party right now. You can talk about principle all you want, but sticking to principles that only 35% of the public strongly believes in doesn't get you anywhere. This election is fast becoming a replay of 1964, especially if Santorum wins. This will be quite an achievement. You take a President with consistently underwater approval ratings and let him win another term...by double digits. That's Bowlen-esque in its patheticness.

I absolutely understand what you're saying but it basically amounts to going through the motions. That $4T package... I can't claim to have read it, studied it, or know anything about it other than what I read in a few articles in passing but I'd be willing to put money on it that it was a lot of hand waving and accounting tricks. Even if it were legitimate, I believe that number was what would be shaved over 10 years, right? So $400B a year when the yearly deficit is in the trillions? That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say compromise is a dangerous thing. In this case, people with good intentions could've made minor achievements through compromise but the actual impact would've been negligible. I'd rather they take a stand and draw attention to the issue than make some token spending cuts and pretend like things have actually changed or been truly improved.

And I say I'm a conservative but I don't identify GOP because I think they're as shady as the D party is naive. Rs want to milk the system for money, Ds want to milk the system for gratification and to lead the fight against "the man". The direction of the country is my biggest concern and that seems way down the list of either of those two parties. There were some Tea Party folk at least saying the right things. I was glad to see them not "compromise" their values and priorities with the mock changes that were put on the table.

Dexter
02-20-2012, 12:35 PM
Just going to leave this right here....

10 outrageous things Santorum has said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/20/10-outrageous-things-rick-santorum-has-said.html

LOL

EDIT- Also Relevant RE Santorum's lack of support :
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/politics/santorum-senate/index.html

"Santorum was in the Senate for 12 years. He served in the House for four years before that. Yet only three House members have endorsed him, and he has no endorsements from any sitting senators."

SoCalBronco
02-20-2012, 09:44 PM
Just going to leave this right here....

10 outrageous things Santorum has said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/20/10-outrageous-things-rick-santorum-has-said.html

LOL

EDIT- Also Relevant RE Santorum's lack of support :
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/politics/santorum-senate/index.html

"Santorum was in the Senate for 12 years. He served in the House for four years before that. Yet only three House members have endorsed him, and he has no endorsements from any sitting senators."

I'm sure the White House is loving this. I would be if I were in their shoes. This guy couldn't win more than 150 EVs in a general election. This is just an embarassment at this point. It looks like it will be a brokered convention, as I don't see anyone getting the required 1400 odd delegates (about 67% worth). Santorum is going to win Ohio and alot of Southwest states (Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri). Romney will hold on to take back Michigan and the northeast states as well as the far west states. Gingrich will win his home state of Georgia and perhaps another one or two Southern states and Paul will get his share of delegates, especially from the caucus states. The endgame is that Romney will be ahead going into the convention, but still probably a couple hundred delegates short. He has an unspoken alliance with Paul for some reason I haven't figured out yet (perhaps Paul believes he's the least likely to do damage on the international scene) and perhaps he'll work a deal with Paul at the convention to take his delegates in exchange for some unknown concessions. I'm sure a white knight will try to steal it at the convention, but most party regulars would reject Jeb Bush because his last name is still too radioactive and most conservatives would reject Mitch Daniels because he's too moderate (and has a small bit of personal baggage, I would definitely vote for Daniels though, if he were the nominee).

Romney will still emerge as the victor, albeit bloodied and really more by default than an actual win, all the while, Team Obama continues to amass massive amounts of money, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1B. By the time Romney gets the nod, his opponents will have given David Plouffe and Co. so much material that he's pelted with vicious ads over the course of the summer and early fall. Romney will respond ofcourse, but even if he dips significantly into his personal fortune, there's still a key shortfall there against a 1 billion dollar assault. Obama's PR team is going to pound him into oblivion and they are going to control the narrative from the very beginning. They're going to goad Romney, too. They can see, as any observer can, that when he's out of his element, he comes across very poorly. When the press turns on him (and they will when he's ready to face Obama), he's going to have a very hard time in these personal interactions with them and its going to play very poorly. This carefully constructed image is going to crack. Unless there is some kind of economic collapse or international event (Iran?) that is a game changer (I'm getting tired of that term), I'm not seeing a viable way that Romney can defeat Obama, especially coming out of a brokered convention.

spdirty
02-20-2012, 09:58 PM
Just going to leave this right here....

10 outrageous things Santorum has said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/20/10-outrageous-things-rick-santorum-has-said.html

“I think the Democrats are actually worried he [Obama] may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.”

LOL

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2012, 10:02 PM
2. Tax reform. Most Congressional Republicans are unwilling to accept a replacement of the Bush tax cuts with something like Bowles-Simpson, which reduces overall rates for the vast majority of people but cuts out alot of loopholes. Since there hasn't been an agreement, the Bush tax cuts will simply expire at the end of the year (probably a good thing for deficit reduction purposes), but there will be no milder tax cut to offset the increases brought about by the sunsetting of the older cuts. There will simply be nothing...other than a return to 2001 rates. If we got on board with something like Bowles-Simpson, we'd actually be able to say we achieved another tax cut for the public and this one would be broader in its reach (in terms of more people getting the benefit of it), although nowhere near as costly. That would have been a double win...a tax cut without massive debt issues. It would have gone a long way to convincing the general public that the party believes in cutting taxes for the middle class, not just the rich while at hte same time showing you can cut taxes in a way that is fiscally responsible. Ofcourse, no one seemed to care about Bowles-Simpson when Huntsman was talking about it. Rather, morons got wrapped up in stupid stuff like 9-9-9 and all that crap.

Funny you only focus on the Republican side of Simpson-Bowles. Go back and read what the Democrats had to say about it. They hated it and wanted nothing to do with it, mostly because it did what HAS to be done... reform entitlements.

SoCalBronco
02-20-2012, 10:10 PM
Funny you only focus on the Republican side of Simpson-Bowles. Go back and read what the Democrats had to say about it. They hated it and wanted nothing to do with it, mostly because it did what HAS to be done... reform entitlements.

I agree that entitlement reform is absolutely necessary. SS/Medicare are not sustainable and there have to be some combination of benefit reduction/eligible age increases/a less generous inflationary measure to get long term costs in line. This is one of the key drivers of long term debt issues and it must be tackled. I have some serious issues with Obama, but I was impressed when he was willing to propose significant changes here as part of his 4T "grand bargain". It's unclear whether he had the votes for that (the overall package, not just that part) in the House, but from all appearances he had more votes for it than Boehner did. Both sides need to cave. I think most House Dems would be willing to accept moderate to significant SS/Medicare reforms in exchange for sunsetting the Bush tax cuts. There's really no choice here, these programs need to be reined in. Whether you want to do it now or later, no one wants to be left holding the bag politically if those two programs collapse on their watch, so there WILL be changes made, just by political necessity, at some point. AARP is starting to come around and realize that this needs to be done, so they're trying to advocate for minor to moderate reforms to get out ahead of the issue PR wise. It's inevitable. In theory, it should be a simple swap. GOP gives up Bush tax cuts, DEM concede moderate to significant Medicare/SS changes. Wyden/Ryan are already working on the entitlement angle, although I think what they've come up with so far is still not aggressive enough to tackle the problem.

Taco John
02-21-2012, 01:29 AM
I don't want to speak for Cito, but I think what he might be saying is that there has been alot lost recently due to a general refusal to compromise. Both sides have had issues here, but I think most of the fault recently lies with our party (GOP).

Look at what's been lost:

1. A "grand bargain" on long term deficit reduction. Obama and Boehner had worked out the basics of a 4 trillion dollar package. This was, on balance, a great step towards debt reduction and included necessary Medicare/SS reforms. Yes, there were some tax increases that would be a part of it, but it still would be largely a conservative victory. This is probably the single biggest missed oppurtunity for Republicans in Obama's term to date. This would have been.....would have been, the most significant policy achievement for Congressional Republicans in years. But it wasn't good enough for the Tea Party wing and guys like Eric Cantor. They fail to realize that politics isn't a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as winning everything. Life doesn't work that way. We don't have the votes. That's not how reality operates. So instead of getting a very good achievement, conservatives said its not perfect so I can't support it. Stupid.

2. Tax reform. Most Congressional Republicans are unwilling to accept a replacement of the Bush tax cuts with something like Bowles-Simpson, which reduces overall rates for the vast majority of people but cuts out alot of loopholes. Since there hasn't been an agreement, the Bush tax cuts will simply expire at the end of the year (probably a good thing for deficit reduction purposes), but there will be no milder tax cut to offset the increases brought about by the sunsetting of the older cuts. There will simply be nothing...other than a return to 2001 rates. If we got on board with something like Bowles-Simpson, we'd actually be able to say we achieved another tax cut for the public and this one would be broader in its reach (in terms of more people getting the benefit of it), although nowhere near as costly. That would have been a double win...a tax cut without massive debt issues. It would have gone a long way to convincing the general public that the party believes in cutting taxes for the middle class, not just the rich while at hte same time showing you can cut taxes in a way that is fiscally responsible. Ofcourse, no one seemed to care about Bowles-Simpson when Huntsman was talking about it. Rather, morons got wrapped up in stupid stuff like 9-9-9 and all that crap.

We're not acting like a grown up party right now. You can talk about principle all you want, but sticking to principles that only 35% of the public strongly believes in doesn't get you anywhere. This election is fast becoming a replay of 1964, especially if Santorum wins. This will be quite an achievement. You take a President with consistently underwater approval ratings and let him win another term...by double digits. That's Bowlen-esque in its patheticness.

The grand bargain was a sham. It was nothing more than more nibbling away at the edges while blowing a trumpet at how great Obama is for nibbling away at the edges. That was a no-win option for the GOP. It would have provided Obama with a great PR talking point while providing Republicans with nothing more than superficial cuts.

The Republicans have only two hopes to win the election: Romney or Paul. They are the only two which national polls show finish within striking distance of Obama. I personally expect that a seriously weakened Romney will win the nomination and lose to Obama. If Santorum wins the nomination, I'll just laugh and leave the party for good. I have no home in a party that would nominate someone like Santorum as the standard bearer.

Dexter
02-21-2012, 02:24 AM
The grand bargain was a sham. It was nothing more than more nibbling away at the edges while blowing a trumpet at how great Obama is for nibbling away at the edges. That was a no-win option for the GOP. It would have provided Obama with a great PR talking point while providing Republicans with nothing more than superficial cuts.

The Republicans have only two hopes to win the election: Romney or Paul. They are the only two which national polls show finish within striking distance of Obama. I personally expect that a seriously weakened Romney will win the nomination and lose to Obama. If Santorum wins the nomination, I'll just laugh and leave the party for good. I have no home in a party that would nominate someone like Santorum as the standard bearer.

I'm with you. I may not be a republican, but I'm also not a big Obama supporter. If Santorum gets nominated, I just won't understand how the GOP has become so extreme. I can get behind a Paul ticket, because at least he comes off as someone who isn't going to f'n start **** with Iran and whoever else. Paul has some wacky ideas IMO, but I like his take on states rights.

Romney is someone I'm not a big fan of, because I think he's more status quo. He is also incredibly inconsistent.

Now if somehow Santorum wins the General Election, I don't know what I'm going to do. I usually hate people who go "I'm moving out of the U.S." but that would be me. The guy is a crazy war mongering, bigot who talks to people with this condescending attitude. He's also a massive hypocrite. He calls for small government, yet wants to regulate what people do in bed? Ok.:rofl::

"Freedom isnt to do whatever you want to do, it's to do what you ought to do" -- Rick Santorum

And he'll be the one to tell us what we ought to do. This guy really f'n scares me.

Drek
02-21-2012, 03:45 AM
The grand bargain was a sham. It was nothing more than more nibbling away at the edges while blowing a trumpet at how great Obama is for nibbling away at the edges. That was a no-win option for the GOP. It would have provided Obama with a great PR talking point while providing Republicans with nothing more than superficial cuts.

The Republicans have only two hopes to win the election: Romney or Paul. They are the only two which national polls show finish within striking distance of Obama. I personally expect that a seriously weakened Romney will win the nomination and lose to Obama. If Santorum wins the nomination, I'll just laugh and leave the party for good. I have no home in a party that would nominate someone like Santorum as the standard bearer.
It wasn't a sham, it was as big a step forward as the current political climate would allow and it turns out it wouldn't even allow that.

You pair parts of it with parts of Simpson-Bowles and you're likely doing ok. It'll take over a decade to really pay down the deficit, but you'd be on your way and the consistency of the approach would be a massive boost to the economy, helping to produce more revenue and whittling down the debt a bit faster.

I honestly don't see how anyone who isn't a hardline moral conservative can associate with the GOP at this point, honestly. Huntsman was a GREAT candidate and he got zero play because he doesn't toe the party line on the moral issues. He had a far more developed, far more realistic plan for tax reform than anyone else but since it required real thought it stalled against things like "9-9-9". He was the ONLY GOP candidate who could even make the foreign policy argument against Obama.

Now it'll be Mitt Romney who can't win the state he was born in (Michigan) or the state he was governor of (Massachusetts) against Obama. He might finish within striking distance on the national vote numbers but he'll finish miles behind in the electoral college and we'll see news networks calling this thing by 11PM.

The GOP dug themselves one hell of a hole already going after CBA rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. Those states were trending red until the republicans at the state level dropped a political nuke with that bull****. Now they're easy states for Obama to keep blue. That means Obama has three paths to victory. A midwest approach sees him spend big in WI, OH, and MI, locking the three of them up and only needing one other swing state off the map to cross 270 and win. An Atlantic seaboard approach where he goes hard after VA, NC, and FL, again needing only one other state on the map to win. Or a western states approach where he locks up NV, NM, and CO along with just one of the big central or eastern swing states (MI, NC, VA, or FL). Any of those three and he probably wins. He'll have the money to shoot for all three if he really wants. We could have near 9% unemployment still and Obama would be the favorite, now with slow but economic improvement and new business trends making him look better by the day (GM back on top handing out fat bonus checks to employees, actually having made profit off the bank bailouts) he's getting to the point where he could really roll over any opposition and pave the way for a democratic retaking of the congress, or at least seriously neutering the GOP edge and teeing up a democratic take over in 2014.

Durango
02-21-2012, 05:07 AM
I've been a mixed bag politically, generally supporting Democratic social issues, but leaning much more Republican on fiscal matters.

That being said, Santorum represents a Waterloo for the Republican Party. If he were to somehow wrestle the nomination, he would leave the GOP a wasteland following the 2012 general election. The guy was an incumbent U-S Senator in Penn and lost by double digits to a liberal Dem. Imagine how he would play on a national stage.

Romney has one ace in the hole if he gets the nomination, and it could be enough to push him over the election hump this November; Chris Christie.

There's no doubt in my mind Romney would beg on bended knee, and from what I'm reading, Christie looks like a lame duck in NJ, so, he would probably take the challenge.

Romney-Christie would be very appealing, and it may represent the first time in U-S history a Presidential candidate rides the coattails of a VP candidate to victory.

alkemical
02-21-2012, 07:11 AM
So... which part of making the prisoners work and taking their money are you missing? The making them produce... or the seizure of their money?

Some of the men could produce food. Some furniture. Others...? It's really not that hard of a concept.

What $, they aren't making $...YOU'RE PAYING THEM THE $.

PS - they aren't allowed to grow food because it represents a "security" risk.

Again, learn more about it if you want to understand how policy effects more than bed counts.

BroncoInferno
02-21-2012, 07:26 AM
I've been a mixed bag politically, generally supporting Democratic social issues, but leaning much more Republican on fiscal matters.

That being said, Santorum represents a Waterloo for the Republican Party. If he were to somehow wrestle the nomination, he would leave the GOP a wasteland following the 2012 general election. The guy was an incumbent U-S Senator in Penn and lost by double digits to a liberal Dem. Imagine how he would play on a national stage.

Romney has one ace in the hole if he gets the nomination, and it could be enough to push him over the election hump this November; Chris Christie.

There's no doubt in my mind Romney would beg on bended knee, and from what I'm reading, Christie looks like a lame duck in NJ, so, he would probably take the challenge.

Romney-Christie would be very appealing, and it may represent the first time in U-S history a Presidential candidate rides the coattails of a VP candidate to victory.

An appealing VP choice can give a candidate a boost, but historically that boost is only temporary and the poll numbers normalize after a couple of weeks. Hoping for a VP candidate to swoop in and save the ticket is a pipe-dream.

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 07:38 AM
The Republican Party is not run by conservatives. That's why they can't make any deals. They don't care about deals. They are a "values" party now. They care about ideology. They care about dogma. What is Santorum beating Obama over the head with this week? The economy? No. Jobs? No. He says Obama has the wrong theology. Even the most scantily educated independent out there knows that Obama is not a wild eyed, socialist radical, born in Kenya, with a hidden, Muslim agenda. But the whacko Right believes it. And they're the ones yanking the chain, making the GOP dog heel.

I can't wait for the GOP convention. ;D

alkemical
02-21-2012, 08:22 AM
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k82/amesj523/monopolyblowjob.jpg

That One Guy
02-21-2012, 08:40 AM
What $, they aren't making $...YOU'RE PAYING THEM THE $.

PS - they aren't allowed to grow food because it represents a "security" risk.

Again, learn more about it if you want to understand how policy effects more than bed counts.

I give up. You're either making stupid points to be difficult or you're retarded and we just don't know it. Either way, I'm done with this.

That One Guy
02-21-2012, 08:43 AM
You pair parts of it with parts of Simpson-Bowles and you're likely doing ok. It'll take over a decade to really pay down the deficit, but you'd be on your way and the consistency of the approach would be a massive boost to the economy, helping to produce more revenue and whittling down the debt a bit faster.


Elaborate, please. If there were any whittling of the debt, I'd approve. I think maybe you meant to say deficit rather than debt. We have to worry about getting a balanced budget before we can worry about paying off bills from the past. The balanced budget doesn't even seem a concern to most so if there were a deficit, I hardly think anyone running things today would be worried about paying off debt.

You have to have meant deficit instead and I think merely whittling the deficit is not an accomplishment. You don't pat yourself on the back because you're going less into debt every month. You pat yourself on the back when you're no longer going into debt and especially when you start to come out of it.

houghtam
02-21-2012, 09:16 AM
I've been a mixed bag politically, generally supporting Democratic social issues, but leaning much more Republican on fiscal matters.

That being said, Santorum represents a Waterloo for the Republican Party. If he were to somehow wrestle the nomination, he would leave the GOP a wasteland following the 2012 general election. The guy was an incumbent U-S Senator in Penn and lost by double digits to a liberal Dem. Imagine how he would play on a national stage.

Romney has one ace in the hole if he gets the nomination, and it could be enough to push him over the election hump this November; Chris Christie.

There's no doubt in my mind Romney would beg on bended knee, and from what I'm reading, Christie looks like a lame duck in NJ, so, he would probably take the challenge.

Romney-Christie would be very appealing, and it may represent the first time in U-S history a Presidential candidate rides the coattails of a VP candidate to victory.

You really think Christie would help the GOP candidate? If anyone can make minorities in the deep south mobilize for Obama, it's Chris "the Civil Rights Movement should have been voted on" Christie. He'd have a better chance putting Bristol Palin as his running mate.

alkemical
02-21-2012, 09:23 AM
I give up. You're either making stupid points to be difficult or you're retarded and we just don't know it. Either way, I'm done with this.

It's just the big picture of how business is done with this particular industry. Are there changes that can be made, "yes". Most of those include policies for what types of people are considered "prisoners". Those changes in polices (ie: laws) will have a greater impact than moving $ around to make it look like there's a reduction in cost, but in the end the taxpayers are still paying all the $.

Prisoner makes desk, desk is sold to State_Revenue_Dept - the problem is it's not profit, since State_Rev_Dept is still using tax payer $.

So when Corr_Industries claims they're making a profit - it means that they've found a way to grown business, and increase tax revenue.

if you're interested though, google and research how prison labor & corrections industries are run. Pretty interesting!!! it was really amazed at how private prisons exceed the cost of state run prisons (by yr 3), and also have some problems with security due to "cost savings".

This isn't a "pro-state" argument, it's more about a long-term cost argument. Most of the time, these private prisons end up failing and the state has to "purchase" it back, at a much higher cost.

I'm some ways, prisons are infrastructure related costs. I mean, it's not just "beds" - it's parole agents, it's court costs, etc etc.

But you are right, this topic has run it's course. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who has little information vs. lots of opinion on this topic.

bendog
02-21-2012, 09:25 AM
The Republican Party is not run by conservatives. That's why they can't make any deals. They don't care about deals. They are a "values" party now. They care about ideology. They care about dogma. What is Santorum beating Obama over the head with this week? The economy? No. Jobs? No. He says Obama has the wrong theology. Even the most scantily educated independent out there knows that Obama is not a wild eyed, socialist radical, born in Kenya, with a hidden, Muslim agenda. But the whacko Right believes it. And they're the ones yanking the chain, making the GOP dog heel.

I can't wait for the GOP convention. ;D

Freedom Works has Dick Lugar and Orin Hatch on their hit list. If they run a Christine O'Donnel in Indiana, they could easily lose that seat in a year when they should take the senate. You're right. The gop would actually rather NOT be the party in power, if winning power required a compromise on privitized medicare and ending social security as we know it inorder to not raise the debt limit while simultaneously refusing to raise any new revenues even if the tax loopholes do more harm than good to the overall community.

I don't usually care for Krugman because I am not a fan of using taxes to force income equality, and I'd be proud to vote for Lugar or Hatch rather than some in the dem party, but as a political commentator, he can be prescient

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html

bendog
02-21-2012, 09:28 AM
You really think Christie would help the GOP candidate? If anyone can make minorities in the deep south mobilize for Obama, it's Chris "the Civil Rights Movement should have been voted on" Christie. He'd have a better chance putting Bristol Palin as his running mate.

The gop can run Howdy Doody, and at the rate they're going they just may, but regardless the only state in the old confederacy that O has a chance at is Fla, and he won't win Tenn or Kentucky either. (Kentucky's such a lovely place, but you'd have to live with Rand Paul)

edit: if they run Santorum, Obama might win VA and or NC

houghtam
02-21-2012, 09:33 AM
The Republican Party is not run by conservatives. That's why they can't make any deals. They don't care about deals. They are a "values" party now. They care about ideology. They care about dogma. What is Santorum beating Obama over the head with this week? The economy? No. Jobs? No. He says Obama has the wrong theology. Even the most scantily educated independent out there knows that Obama is not a wild eyed, socialist radical, born in Kenya, with a hidden, Muslim agenda. But the whacko Right believes it. And they're the ones yanking the chain, making the GOP dog heel.

I can't wait for the GOP convention. ;D

I also love the fact how he says "I believe that Obama is a Christian" as opposed to "Obama is a Christian". See the difference? Add to that the fact that it's been known for 5+ years that he's a Christian (much longer for people who actually know him)...the very fact that people keep bringing it up is telling in and of itself.

They're playing to the ignorant minority who are believing what they want to believe: that Obama is a heathen Muslim black man who is there to steal their guns, their freedoms and their bigoted Christian way of life.

houghtam
02-21-2012, 09:39 AM
The gop can run Howdy Doody, and at the rate they're going they just may, but regardless the only state in the old confederacy that O has a chance at is Fla, and he won't win Tenn or Kentucky either. (Kentucky's such a lovely place, but you'd have to live with Rand Paul)

edit: if they run Santorum, Obama might win VA and or NC

Obama only lost Georgia by less than 30k votes. I'd bet you could add that to the list, as well.

bendog
02-21-2012, 09:44 AM
I don't really think so. Every blue dog in Ga and Miss got unseated in the offyear. But, assuming the gop runs a really polarizing figure, maybe anything is possible. Obama ran as the great uniter, and there has not been any bipartisan anything. Not that that's entirely his fault. But his polling with independents was pretty dismall until Santorum charged.

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 10:02 AM
I also love the fact how he says "I believe that Obama is a Christian" as opposed to "Obama is a Christian". See the difference? Add to that the fact that it's been known for 5+ years that he's a Christian (much longer for people who actually know him)...the very fact that people keep bringing it up is telling in and of itself.

They're playing to the ignorant minority who are believing what they want to believe: that Obama is a heathen Muslim black man who is there to steal their guns, their freedoms and their bigoted Christian way of life.

Actually, the line they always use is, "Well, Obama says he's a Christian." wink wink

Now it appears that Billy Graham Jr. is picking up on the attacks on Obama's theology: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/franklin-graham-obama_n_1290657.html

More hilariousness from the Right Wing zealots. They treat the Constitution pretty much the same way they treat the Bible. If they don't like what it says, they just toss it out. :rofl:

In this case, I guess Santorum and the Tea Party aren't familiar with Article VI, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 10:13 AM
Freedom Works has Dick Lugar and Orin Hatch on their hit list. If they run a Christine O'Donnel in Indiana, they could easily lose that seat in a year when they should take the senate. You're right. The gop would actually rather NOT be the party in power, if winning power required a compromise on privitized medicare and ending social security as we know it inorder to not raise the debt limit while simultaneously refusing to raise any new revenues even if the tax loopholes do more harm than good to the overall community.

I don't usually care for Krugman because I am not a fan of using taxes to force income equality, and I'd be proud to vote for Lugar or Hatch rather than some in the dem party, but as a political commentator, he can be prescient

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Krugman is right on with this take. The GOP manipulated the extremists for years, but were always able to hold them at arm's length. They could tell them they were fighting against abortion and flag burning and gay marriage, and get those votes, and then do nothing about those issues. That was their formula for years. But now, the extremists have moved in and taken over the party. They want their ideological agenda. And the old guard is getting tossed. That's why Santorum is rising while Romney falls.

Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy" has blown up in the GOP's faces. ;D

bendog
02-21-2012, 10:18 AM
Actually, the line they always use is, "Well, Obama says he's a Christian." wink wink

Now it appears that Billy Graham Jr. is picking up on the attacks on Obama's theology: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/franklin-graham-obama_n_1290657.html

More hilariousness from the Right Wing zealots. They treat the Constitution pretty much the same way they treat the Bible. If they don't like what it says, they just toss it out. :rofl:

In this case, I guess Santorum and the Tea Party aren't familiar with Article VI, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I think its ideology rather than theology, but honestly felt. To Santorum and those he appeals to, any govt intrusion into what they percieve as family is an intrustion into their religious freedom. This includes govt mandated educ curriculum; govt provided child care for single /working parents; govt guaranteed access to contraception....


Contrast that to Jerimiah Wright's churches social outreach and where the money comes from. That's where this "false theology" stuff comes from. There cannot be any compromise of even acknowlegement that Obama's view of christian ethics is as valid as their own. And, they certainly see govt as the enemy.

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 10:24 AM
I think its ideology rather than theology, but honestly felt. To Santorum and those he appeals to, any govt intrusion into what they percieve as family is an intrustion into their religious freedom. This includes govt mandated educ curriculum; govt provided child care for single /working parents; govt guaranteed access to contraception....


Contrast that to Jerimiah Wright's churches social outreach and where the money comes from. That's where this "false theology" stuff comes from. There cannot be any compromise of even acknowlegement that Obama's view of christian ethics is as valid as their own. And, they certainly see govt as the enemy.

It's an American tradition. Freedom loving Americans have been fighting the Puritan movement since the first flag was planted in Jamestown.

bendog
02-21-2012, 10:29 AM
Krugman is right on with this take. The GOP manipulated the extremists for years, but were always able to hold them at arm's length. They could tell them they were fighting against abortion and flag burning and gay marriage, and get those votes, and then do nothing about those issues. That was their formula for years. But now, the extremists have moved in and taken over the party. They want their ideological agenda. And the old guard is getting tossed. That's why Santorum is rising while Romney falls.

Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy" has blown up in the GOP's faces. ;D

Bushii ran us off, and they stayed behind. The party of rump. They'll control elections in less populus places like Utah and Kentucky, but when someone like Nikky Haley looks out and figures the party has to broaden its base by compromising ideology, they'll jump her. Gingrich tried joining the party, but like the article said he had a history as a right of center compromiser, and in the end that doomed him when Romney went after his record. Romney's similar negative attacks on Santorum may not work, because he is, and always has been, a fringe kind of guy.

The dems problem is this. In Utah, when Bennett got jumped for trying to compromise on a mandate in exchange for more personal control of healthcare, the less extreme/willing to copromise gopers can stay home in a general election, but the gop will still win. SC, Miss, Ala, same thing unless it's in a black mandated district. But Obama cannot win a general election if these voters stay home in swing states like Indiana or Colorado. They may have no reason to vote for the gop candidate, but they still need a reason to vote for him.

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 10:34 AM
Bushii ran us off, and they stayed behind. The party of rump. They'll control elections in less populus places like Utah and Kentucky, but when someone like Nikky Haley looks out and figures the party has to broaden its base by compromising ideology, they'll jump her. Gingrich tried joining the party, but like the article said he had a history as a right of center compromiser, and in the end that doomed him when Romney went after his record. Romney's similar negative attacks on Santorum may not work, because he is, and always has been, a fringe kind of guy.

The dems problem is this. In Utah, when Bennett got jumped for trying to compromise on a mandate in exchange for more personal control of healthcare, the less extreme/willing to copromise gopers can stay home in a general election, but the gop will still win. SC, Miss, Ala, same thing unless it's in a black mandated district. But Obama cannot win a general election if these voters stay home in swing states like Indiana or Colorado. They may have no reason to vote for the gop candidate, but they still need a reason to vote for him.

The GOP should be worried. The turnout for these primaries has been abysmal, something like 2% in Colorado.

"Jumping" Nikky Haley? :~ohyah!:

Dexter
02-21-2012, 10:42 AM
I think its ideology rather than theology, but honestly felt. To Santorum and those he appeals to, any govt intrusion into what they percieve as family is an intrustion into their religious freedom. This includes govt mandated educ curriculum; govt provided child care for single /working parents; govt guaranteed access to contraception....


Contrast that to Jerimiah Wright's churches social outreach and where the money comes from. That's where this "false theology" stuff comes from. There cannot be any compromise of even acknowlegement that Obama's view of christian ethics is as valid as their own. And, they certainly see govt as the enemy.

And this is precisely where he's going to lose women and independents. I can see the argument against government guaranteed access to contraception. Don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it. But Santorum is so extreme, and like someone else said in this thread, he's really going to ruin it for the GOP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-santorum-could-take-republicans-down-with-him/2012/02/20/gIQA8Af8PR_story.html

A section out of the article:

Santorum’s social conservatism is a huge iceberg, and his views on women and childbearing are just the tip. He not only opposes gay marriage but has criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws and declared that “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” That alone would be enough to put him well outside the mainstream. But his Ozzie-and-Harriet ideas about family life place him in a different solar system.

In his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” he lectured women who choose to work outside the home, writing that “the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.”

Also, for supposedly seeing the government as the enemy, Santorum sure wouldn't be afraid to tell people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their home.

TonyR
02-21-2012, 11:03 AM
So far, three million voters have participated in the Republican races, less than the population of Connecticut. This means that 89 percent of all registered voters in those states [that have held caucuses or primaries] have not participated in what is, from a horse-race perspective, a very tight contest. Yes, we know Republicans don’t like their choices; it’s a meh primary. But still, in some states, this election could be happening in a ghost town. Less than 1 percent of registered voters turned out for Maine’s caucus. In Nevada, where Republican turnout was down 25 percent from 2008, only 3 percent of total registered voters participated. This is not majority rule by any measure; it barely qualifies as participatory democracy.

...the small fraction of Americans who are trying to pick the Republican nominee are old, white, uniformly Christian and unrepresentative of the nation at large.http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/the-electoral-wasteland/

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 11:11 AM
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/the-electoral-wasteland/

Perhaps that sound you hear is the death knell of the radical Right? Last waltz of the ghost dancers? ;D

TonyR
02-21-2012, 11:17 AM
Can Santorum Win In The South? For me, it was always the question. The evangelical South controls the GOP and most of the Christianist leaders backed Santorum against Gingrich at their summit earlier this year. But Newt's Southern roots and mastery of right-wing populist rhetoric always struck me as potentially more sellable in, say, Texas, than the up-tight Bill Donohue-style theocon Catholic from Pennsylvania.

But things have changed, haven't they? The national polls now show not just a Gingrich decline but a vertical one. He's in free-fall. He's gone from around 30 percent to 15 in barely three weeks. His only hope is Georgia, his home-state, or the ultras in California's ultra-right GOP base. So I think this is a Romney-Santorum race. More to the point, if Santorum wins Michigan, I think he may well win the nomination.

But even if he doesn't win Michigan, it now seems the South could warm to him, in part because he is the most anti-Obama of the anti-Obamas, the most intent on violence as the best option in foreign policy, and in part because of his long, consistent, fanatical, Christianism (especially expressed in his contempt for non-fundamentalist mainline Protestantism).http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/can-santorum-win-in-the-south.html

Drunken.Broncoholic
02-21-2012, 11:21 AM
An appealing VP choice can give a candidate a boost, but historically that boost is only temporary and the poll numbers normalize after a couple of weeks. Hoping for a VP candidate to swoop in and save the ticket is a pipe-dream.

if Christie has his sights on 2016 it wouldnt be out of ordinary for him to claim a VP beforehand with Romney...it would give him a boost for sure...people had an absolute fit with Palin, with so much media hype/hate with her..so i could see the VP position having an appeal to voters this time around..

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 11:26 AM
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/can-santorum-win-in-the-south.html

I don't know about that. The South is anti-Obama, but many are still also anti-Papist.

bendog
02-21-2012, 01:09 PM
I don't know about that. The South is anti-Obama, but many are still also anti-Papist.

I dunno that Obama's position on Catholic Charaties and multi-billion dollar hospitals and contraception really hurts him with catholics. The laity walked away from the bishops over contraception even before the sexual abuse scandals. Catholics realize Obamacare doesn't make the catholics give contraception to Mrs. OLeary who is Father Paul's housekeeper. But it would make them pay for contracetion to the tens of thousands of nurses who work in hospitals that in reality are merely "catholic" to avoid taxes. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but catholic charaties gets millions in federal grants (to do good things) and the hospitals get billions in medicare and medicaid.

However, the voters who rally to the Bishops' side are the born again protestant group. And that will carry the day in the South, though maybe not Fla.

BroncoBuff
02-21-2012, 01:50 PM
The Republican Party is not run by conservatives. That's why they can't make any deals. They don't care about deals. They are a "values" party now. They care about ideology. They care about dogma.

Conservatives and evangelicals don't have much in common really. Traditional conservatives (as opposed to social ones) are more like libertarians, the party of Goldwater resembles Ron Paul, not Rick Santorum. In fact, Barry Goldwater couldn't stand evangelicals.

It's like a sickness the way evangelicals twist and contort the foundation of our very secular government to make room for Jesus, it's just not smart. But I guess if you can twist Jesus' teachings enough to permit a "Prosperity gospel," then disregarding Madison and Jefferson must be easy.

Rohirrim
02-21-2012, 03:48 PM
Conservatives and evangelicals don't have much in common really. Traditional conservatives (as opposed to social ones) are more like libertarians, the party of Goldwater resembles Ron Paul, not Rick Santorum. In fact, Barry Goldwater couldn't stand evangelicals.

It's like a sickness the way evangelicals twist and contort the foundation of our very secular government to make room for Jesus, it's just not smart. But I guess if you can twist Jesus' teachings enough to permit a "Prosperity gospel," then disregarding Madison and Jefferson must be easy.

Billy Graham's son has jumped into the fray now. He says Santorum is a "...man of faith." But Obama?

Later in the segment, Graham also said he could not be sure that Obama was not a Muslim.

"All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries," he said.

He continued, "Islam sees him as a son of Islam... I can't say categorically that [Obama is not Muslim] because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/franklin-graham-obama_n_1290657.html

I don't know why they keep doing this stuff. The Right already has that 20% of the population (the knuckledraggers and mouthbreathers vote) all sewn up. Ha!

Damn the Constitution! We want a religious test for office, dadgummit!

El Minion
02-21-2012, 05:39 PM
Conservatives and evangelicals don't have much in common really. Traditional conservatives (as opposed to social ones) are more like libertarians, the party of Goldwater resembles Ron Paul, not Rick Santorum. In fact, Barry Goldwater couldn't stand evangelicals.

It's like a sickness the way evangelicals twist and contort the foundation of our very secular government to make room for Jesus, it's just not smart. But I guess if you can twist Jesus' teachings enough to permit a "Prosperity gospel," then disregarding Madison and Jefferson must be easy.

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/images/image_map_images/one_nation_under_God.jpg?1251219228

Cito Pelon
02-21-2012, 08:03 PM
I don't want to speak for Cito, but I think what he might be saying is that there has been alot lost recently due to a general refusal to compromise. Both sides have had issues here, but I think most of the fault recently lies with our party (GOP).

Look at what's been lost:

1. A "grand bargain" on long term deficit reduction. Obama and Boehner had worked out the basics of a 4 trillion dollar package. This was, on balance, a great step towards debt reduction and included necessary Medicare/SS reforms. Yes, there were some tax increases that would be a part of it, but it still would be largely a conservative victory. This is probably the single biggest missed oppurtunity for Republicans in Obama's term to date. This would have been.....would have been, the most significant policy achievement for Congressional Republicans in years. But it wasn't good enough for the Tea Party wing and guys like Eric Cantor. They fail to realize that politics isn't a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as winning everything. Life doesn't work that way. We don't have the votes. That's not how reality operates. So instead of getting a very good achievement, conservatives said its not perfect so I can't support it. Stupid.

2. Tax reform. Most Congressional Republicans are unwilling to accept a replacement of the Bush tax cuts with something like Bowles-Simpson, which reduces overall rates for the vast majority of people but cuts out alot of loopholes. Since there hasn't been an agreement, the Bush tax cuts will simply expire at the end of the year (probably a good thing for deficit reduction purposes), but there will be no milder tax cut to offset the increases brought about by the sunsetting of the older cuts. There will simply be nothing...other than a return to 2001 rates. If we got on board with something like Bowles-Simpson, we'd actually be able to say we achieved another tax cut for the public and this one would be broader in its reach (in terms of more people getting the benefit of it), although nowhere near as costly. That would have been a double win...a tax cut without massive debt issues. It would have gone a long way to convincing the general public that the party believes in cutting taxes for the middle class, not just the rich while at hte same time showing you can cut taxes in a way that is fiscally responsible. Ofcourse, no one seemed to care about Bowles-Simpson when Huntsman was talking about it. Rather, morons got wrapped up in stupid stuff like 9-9-9 and all that crap.

We're not acting like a grown up party right now. You can talk about principle all you want, but sticking to principles that only 35% of the public strongly believes in doesn't get you anywhere..

Yup.

Cito Pelon
02-21-2012, 08:17 PM
Billy Graham's son has jumped into the fray now. He says Santorum is a "...man of faith." But Obama?

Later in the segment, Graham also said he could not be sure that Obama was not a Muslim.

"All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries," he said.

He continued, "Islam sees him as a son of Islam... I can't say categorically that [Obama is not Muslim] because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/franklin-graham-obama_n_1290657.html

I don't know why they keep doing this stuff. The Right already has that 20% of the population (the knuckledraggers and mouthbreathers vote) all sewn up. Ha!

Damn the Constitution! We want a religious test for office, dadgummit!

Well, Obama DID give Bin Laden a Muslim burial. At sea. From a US Navy destroyer. All out of the goodness of his heart as a son of Islam.

houghtam
02-22-2012, 12:08 AM
Well, Obama DID give Bin Laden a Muslim burial. At sea. From a US Navy destroyer. All out of the goodness of his heart as a son of Islam.

I really wish there were someone that could get enough of the popular vote to not rely on the religious vote AT ALL, who could then simply say "**** off it's none of your business" when they brought up his/her religion, and still get elected.

Sad state of affairs that we as a nation and as a race haven't progressed enough for that to happen.

bendog
02-22-2012, 08:46 AM
I think in 2008 there were some gopers who did support something along the lines of Bowles Simpson, and esp in the Senate, there was a notion that the top 1% had really seen a change in their wealth BECAUSE of Bushii alterations to the tax system, i.e. wealth redisptribution by the govt for the pure purpose of wealth redistribution. Perhaps, this redistribution was unintended by some who voted for them, but imo it was Bushii's plan all along, and that's how he essentially bought the nomination in 2000. It made Forbes a non-factor to the gop. And, bushii compined the the tax cut for the country club republicans and chamber of commerce with his born again bona fides.

But a funny thing happened. Bushii's legacy was those of us who are normally conservative on econ issues but moderate/libertarian on social issues couldn't stomach what bushii did to this country between his elective war and looting of the treasury. So much for the gop mantra of peace and prosperity. McCain should have appealed to us, but he was not only out of touch economically but he seemed intent with attacking Iran.

And then Obama pushed through porkulus and obamacare. I realize porkulus staved off 25% unemployment, but when David Obey answered the question of "won't some of these dog park programs be wasteful and have fraud" with "so what," conservatives were very annoyed. Reagan's mime of the most frighening words in English "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you" are engrained in a majority of voters. Sure, bailing out the banks and GM and keeping state's from massive worker layoffs was all necessary, but the good done was politically destroyed.

And then, Obamacare. Sure, govt had to do something, but having the govt dictate what is covered? That's politically insane. And, imo culturally destructive.

So, we had the teaparty sprout. The Teaparty isn't monolithic. It runs the gammit from von Mises misreaders of Hayek to old white people with signs "don't socialize my medicare." But the upshot is that Obama's policies were divisive. They were elitist and liberal and there was a legitimate social pushback. Grover Norquist's sworn duty is to make sure the top 1% do not pay a greater % of income/tax than they do today. Coupled with that there's Freedom Works whose eventual mission is to privitize social security and medicare ... and return medicaid to private charity, and we might as well toss in eliminate the clean air and water acts.

I really don't know where we go from here. My guess is Santorum will be the nominee, and for the life of me I don't see how a man can be elected favoring forced birthing of rape victims is the work of God, and that to think otherwise is becase Satan has blinded you from the truth, literally. At least I pray he cannot be. The good thing about the gop is that generally the nominee is the guy who washes the hands of the state parties and governors, and no one is better than that than Poppy Bush's two sons.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 09:36 AM
I'm surprised there is not one Republican out there who won't stand up publicly and point out that the Constitution forbids the imposition of a religious test for office, and yet their leading candidates are both, very publicly, doing just that. I guess they only stand for the Constitution when it suits their rhetorical needs.

Dexter
02-22-2012, 09:42 AM
I thought this guy's open letter was excellent. Worth a read. Yes, I'm a redditor.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/q0wzh/an_open_letter_to_the_republican_national/

Dexter
02-22-2012, 09:44 AM
I think in 2008 there were some gopers who did support something along the lines of Bowles Simpson, and esp in the Senate, there was a notion that the top 1% had really seen a change in their wealth BECAUSE of Bushii alterations to the tax system, i.e. wealth redisptribution by the govt for the pure purpose of wealth redistribution. Perhaps, this redistribution was unintended by some who voted for them, but imo it was Bushii's plan all along, and that's how he essentially bought the nomination in 2000. It made Forbes a non-factor to the gop. And, bushii compined the the tax cut for the country club republicans and chamber of commerce with his born again bona fides.

But a funny thing happened. Bushii's legacy was those of us who are normally conservative on econ issues but moderate/libertarian on social issues couldn't stomach what bushii did to this country between his elective war and looting of the treasury. So much for the gop mantra of peace and prosperity. McCain should have appealed to us, but he was not only out of touch economically but he seemed intent with attacking Iran.

And then Obama pushed through porkulus and obamacare. I realize porkulus staved off 25% unemployment, but when David Obey answered the question of "won't some of these dog park programs be wasteful and have fraud" with "so what," conservatives were very annoyed. Reagan's mime of the most frighening words in English "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you" are engrained in a majority of voters. Sure, bailing out the banks and GM and keeping state's from massive worker layoffs was all necessary, but the good done was politically destroyed.

And then, Obamacare. Sure, govt had to do something, but having the govt dictate what is covered? That's politically insane. And, imo culturally destructive.

So, we had the teaparty sprout. The Teaparty isn't monolithic. It runs the gammit from von Mises misreaders of Hayek to old white people with signs "don't socialize my medicare." But the upshot is that Obama's policies were divisive. They were elitist and liberal and there was a legitimate social pushback. Grover Norquist's sworn duty is to make sure the top 1% do not pay a greater % of income/tax than they do today. Coupled with that there's Freedom Works whose eventual mission is to privitize social security and medicare ... and return medicaid to private charity, and we might as well toss in eliminate the clean air and water acts.

I really don't know where we go from here. My guess is Santorum will be the nominee, and for the life of me I don't see how a man can be elected favoring forced birthing of rape victims is the work of God, and that to think otherwise is becase Satan has blinded you from the truth, literally. At least I pray he cannot be. The good thing about the gop is that generally the nominee is the guy who washes the hands of the state parties and governors, and no one is better than that than Poppy Bush's two sons.


Well said. Mostly agree.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 09:54 AM
I think in 2008 there were some gopers who did support something along the lines of Bowles Simpson, and esp in the Senate, there was a notion that the top 1% had really seen a change in their wealth BECAUSE of Bushii alterations to the tax system, i.e. wealth redisptribution by the govt for the pure purpose of wealth redistribution. Perhaps, this redistribution was unintended by some who voted for them, but imo it was Bushii's plan all along, and that's how he essentially bought the nomination in 2000. It made Forbes a non-factor to the gop. And, bushii compined the the tax cut for the country club republicans and chamber of commerce with his born again bona fides.

But a funny thing happened. Bushii's legacy was those of us who are normally conservative on econ issues but moderate/libertarian on social issues couldn't stomach what bushii did to this country between his elective war and looting of the treasury. So much for the gop mantra of peace and prosperity. McCain should have appealed to us, but he was not only out of touch economically but he seemed intent with attacking Iran.

And then Obama pushed through porkulus and obamacare. I realize porkulus staved off 25% unemployment, but when David Obey answered the question of "won't some of these dog park programs be wasteful and have fraud" with "so what," conservatives were very annoyed. Reagan's mime of the most frighening words in English "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you" are engrained in a majority of voters. Sure, bailing out the banks and GM and keeping state's from massive worker layoffs was all necessary, but the good done was politically destroyed.

And then, Obamacare. Sure, govt had to do something, but having the govt dictate what is covered? That's politically insane. And, imo culturally destructive.

So, we had the teaparty sprout. The Teaparty isn't monolithic. It runs the gammit from von Mises misreaders of Hayek to old white people with signs "don't socialize my medicare." But the upshot is that Obama's policies were divisive. They were elitist and liberal and there was a legitimate social pushback. Grover Norquist's sworn duty is to make sure the top 1% do not pay a greater % of income/tax than they do today. Coupled with that there's Freedom Works whose eventual mission is to privitize social security and medicare ... and return medicaid to private charity, and we might as well toss in eliminate the clean air and water acts.

I really don't know where we go from here. My guess is Santorum will be the nominee, and for the life of me I don't see how a man can be elected favoring forced birthing of rape victims is the work of God, and that to think otherwise is becase Satan has blinded you from the truth, literally. At least I pray he cannot be. The good thing about the gop is that generally the nominee is the guy who washes the hands of the state parties and governors, and no one is better than that than Poppy Bush's two sons.

The New Deal programs created the middle class in America. The Right wants to take us back to pre-FDR and TR. Fine. Be prepared for what comes with massive income inequality. What we've seen so far is nothing. There is a reason TR started the progressive movement. He saw socialism rising around the world, throwing down aristocratic governments. He warned the industrialists of his day that their days were numbered if they didn't put more equality into the system. He arbitrated a murderous coal strike in Pennsylvania and knew what was going on.

Laissez faire capitalism is basically King of the Hill. Sure, the one percenters love it. So do the ten percenters. But you always have to have an eye on the 90% who might start thinking they're getting the shaft. Our government has become the equivalent of an aristocratic set-up. We had our little experiment with laissez faire capitalism and tax breaks for the rich over the last thirty years, and you can see where that got us - the largest wealth disparities in American history, the biggest rip-off ponzi scheme in history, the biggest transfer of wealth in history, and a crumbling middle class.

History is future. Once the middle class is gone, prepare for what comes next, because it's only a matter of time before the vast numbers realize they no longer want to occupy the bottom and see no reason why they should. The middle class and the poor got suckered by the Reaganites into believing that government was their enemy. As they can clearly see now, government was the wall protecting them. As the wall comes down, they go down with it.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 10:02 AM
I'm surprised there is not one Republican out there who won't stand up publicly and point out that the Constitution forbids the imposition of a religious test for office, and yet their leading candidates are both, very publicly, doing just that. I guess they only stand for the Constitution when it suits their rhetorical needs.

Provide quotes, if you would, so we can see exactly what you're exaggerating into this statement about religious tests.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 10:03 AM
The New Deal programs created the middle class in America. The Right wants to take us back to pre-FDR and TR. Fine. Be prepared for what comes with massive income inequality. What we've seen so far is nothing. There is a reason TR started the progressive movement. He saw socialism rising around the world, throwing down aristocratic governments. He warned the industrialists of his day that their days were numbered if they didn't put more equality into the system. He arbitrated a murderous coal strike in Pennsylvania and knew what was going on.

Laissez faire capitalism is basically King of the Hill. Sure, the one percenters love it. So do the ten percenters. But you always have to have an eye on the 90% who might start thinking they're getting the shaft. Our government has become the equivalent of an aristocratic set-up. We had our little experiment with laissez faire capitalism and tax breaks for the rich over the last thirty years, and you can see where that got us - the largest wealth disparities in American history, the biggest rip-off ponzi scheme in history, the biggest transfer of wealth in history, and a crumbling middle class.

History is future. Once the middle class is gone, prepare for what comes next, because it's only a matter of time before the vast numbers realize they no longer want to occupy the bottom and see no reason why they should. The middle class and the poor got suckered by the Reaganites into believing that government was their enemy. As they can clearly see now, government was the wall protecting them. As the wall comes down, they go down with it.

Everybody is starving to death and life is miserable for all, right? You'll always find something to bitch about if you really want to find something.

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2012, 10:25 AM
<s>The New Deal programs</s> Henry Ford created the middle class in America.

FIFY

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 10:26 AM
Provide quotes, if you would, so we can see exactly what you're exaggerating into this statement about religious tests.

Watch the news. Visit some news sites. Read the quotes of the candidates. Santorum and Romney, right now, are inserting into their campaign dialogue a public, religious test for office, making false claims against the president, and using religion to pander to the baser instincts of the electorate. As a matter of conscience, no candidate for national office should engage in this kind of behavior. It violates the spirit of the Constitution and is extremely divisive. I can only agree with Robert Gibb's assessment that this GOP contest is a "Race to the bottom."

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 10:27 AM
Everybody is starving to death and life is miserable for all, right? You'll always find something to b**** about if you really want to find something.

Thank you for completely and publicly missing the point. Please refrain from commenting in the future when you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

BroncoInferno
02-22-2012, 10:36 AM
FIFY

In Right Wing Revisionist History 101, that may be the case. Not here in reality.

TD4HOF
02-22-2012, 10:48 AM
Everybody is starving to death and life is miserable for all, right? You'll always find something to b**** about if you really want to find something.

I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you haven't been through any urban ghettos lately. There are actually under-educated, starving children being pushed further and further along the margins. They exist. And they'll be the ones burning our cities sooner or later.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 11:00 AM
Watch the news. Visit some news sites. Read the quotes of the candidates. Santorum and Romney, right now, are inserting into their campaign dialogue a public, religious test for office, making false claims against the president, and using religion to pander to the baser instincts of the electorate. As a matter of conscience, no candidate for national office should engage in this kind of behavior. It violates the spirit of the Constitution and is extremely divisive. I can only agree with Robert Gibb's assessment that this GOP contest is a "Race to the bottom."

So have any uttered the words "I advocate a religious test for office"?

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 11:03 AM
I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you haven't been through any urban ghettos lately. There are actually under-educated, starving children being pushed further and further along the margins. They exist. And they'll be the ones burning our cities sooner or later.

The disconnect between middle class society and the ghetto is much larger than any policies that the government could enact.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 11:30 AM
So have any uttered the words "I advocate a religious test for office"?

Look up res ipsa loquitur.

houghtam
02-22-2012, 11:31 AM
So have any uttered the words "I advocate a religious test for office"?

You can't really be that dense, can you? Bringing up religion at all is a test in public opinion, and since it's the public who does the voting? Yeah, I'd say that's a test for office.

That's just like denying that having a literacy test in order to vote is racist. Sure, it's not saying "minorities can't vote", it's just saying "people who can't read can't vote, and oh look at that, coincidentally a higher percentage of minorities than whites are illiterate...what a co-inky-dink!"

bendog
02-22-2012, 12:47 PM
Provide quotes, if you would, so we can see exactly what you're exaggerating into this statement about religious tests.

When the leading goper candidate says the potus is a false christian that's close enough for all but the knee jerk loons.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 01:35 PM
When the leading goper candidate says the potus is a false christian that's close enough for all but the knee jerk loons.

Romney could have picked up some major independent voter points if he had taken Santorum on over this religious bs and redirected the debate to economic issues. Instead, he waded right into the sewer with Father Rick, claiming that Obama is opposed to "religious liberty" and has a "secular agenda." Hell, Mitt. Five years ago you were pro-choice.

BroncoBeavis
02-22-2012, 01:52 PM
In Right Wing Revisionist History 101, that may be the case. Not here in reality.

Progressives should love HF. He basically doubled the industry's wage overnight all on his own. No collective bargaining required.

Kind of like an industrialist-age Warren Buffett. Except one who put his money where his mouth was. :)

Durango
02-22-2012, 02:00 PM
When the leading goper candidate says the potus is a false christian that's close enough for all but the knee jerk loons.

He doesn't stop there. He says Satan has taken aim at America and Protestants are 'gone' from the realm of Christianity.

Way to alienate the single largest voting block in the US. Including me. I was actually looking at this guy as a possible alternative to Romney. Yikes.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/10790477-505/santorum-defends-2008-speech-about-satans-sights-on-us.html

houghtam
02-22-2012, 02:10 PM
He doesn't stop there. He says Satan has taken aim at America and Protestants are 'gone' from the realm of Christianity.

Way to alienate the single largest voting block in the US. Including me. I was actually looking at this guy as a possible alternative to Romney. Yikes.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/10790477-505/santorum-defends-2008-speech-about-satans-sights-on-us.html

Can't say it's unexpected. Any time you inject religion into the political debate, you also inject crazy.

bendog
02-22-2012, 02:19 PM
History is future. Once the middle class is gone, prepare for what comes next, because it's only a matter of time before the vast numbers realize they no longer want to occupy the bottom and see no reason why they should. The middle class and the poor got suckered by the Reaganites into believing that government was their enemy. As they can clearly see now, government was the wall protecting them. As the wall comes down, they go down with it.

I'll agree the progressives and new deal and the GI bill created the middle class. I can't find an online site, but 'commanding heights," the book and tv series

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

and book "a brief history of neoliberalism" discuss the increase in gnp and wealth globally through Thatcherism, and allowing private actors to allocate capital rather than the keynesian notion of state actors. Even Slick was a neoliberal, but Joseph Stiglitz has several books of self-criticism about the inequitable distribution of wealth.

Five years ago I'd have argued the middle class is better off than it was in 1980. Today, I'm not sure. In 2010, it scared the **** out of reasonable people to see the losses the 1% took. But anyone can google up stats showing they've not only been made whole, but done quite nicely. And unlike FDR, Obama didn't wipe out the shareholders of banks when recapitalizing them. And even now, the guy has no clue as to how biz works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/bankings-got-a-new-critic.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bank%20regulations&st=cse

Of course the gop seems intent on running a guy who actually said sensuality is part of satan's attack on america.

Hotrod
02-22-2012, 02:21 PM
Rick Santorum

Hotrod out :believeit

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 02:51 PM
When the leading goper candidate says the potus is a false christian that's close enough for all but the knee jerk loons.

"Close enough"

So they're not really holding a test for office but they're doing something close. So we all agree the dunce was making things up. That's good enough for me.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 02:56 PM
You can't really be that dense, can you? Bringing up religion at all is a test in public opinion, and since it's the public who does the voting? Yeah, I'd say that's a test for office.

That's just like denying that having a literacy test in order to vote is racist. Sure, it's not saying "minorities can't vote", it's just saying "people who can't read can't vote, and oh look at that, coincidentally a higher percentage of minorities than whites are illiterate...what a co-inky-dink!"

Are you really this dense?

The priorities someone places on who they vote for is a personal liberty. If they want a Christian in the office, that's just as much their decision as those who voted for Obama because they wanted a black person. At least the Christian part can hint to someone's moral and ethical leanings. What does skin tone hint to? Sickle cell risk?

There is no literal test. They're putting the guy's values on the line and pandering to the Christian voters. If someone is ignorant enough to decide their vote based on religion then it is their choice and there's no more we can do about it than we could when equally ignorant folks cast their votes of their own free will.

houghtam
02-22-2012, 03:40 PM
Are you really this dense?

The priorities someone places on who they vote for is a personal liberty. If they want a Christian in the office, that's just as much their decision as those who voted for Obama because they wanted a black person. At least the Christian part can hint to someone's moral and ethical leanings. What does skin tone hint to? Sickle cell risk?

There is no literal test. They're putting the guy's values on the line and pandering to the Christian voters. If someone is ignorant enough to decide their vote based on religion then it is their choice and there's no more we can do about it than we could when equally ignorant folks cast their votes of their own free will.

No.

Putting someone's religion "up for a vote" is unconstitutional, just as putting civil liberties up for a vote is unconstitutional. There are many things that can and do influence people's vote. That does not make it right.

Religion should not be part of the discussion, for the very reason that you stated: people are ignorant enough to vote based on their perceived belief about said religion. Romney's Mormonism, Santorum's Catholicism, Obama's Christianity should not even enter into the debate. You can talk about values without interjecting religion, and to me, an even bigger issue than campaign finance reform is religious freedom reform...that is, no one running for public office or giving money to those running for office should be allowed to question someone's religion.

No mention of God in the US Constitution, folks. Religion shouldn't play a role in politics. End of story.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 03:44 PM
I'll agree the progressives and new deal and the GI bill created the middle class. I can't find an online site, but 'commanding heights," the book and tv series

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

and book "a brief history of neoliberalism" discuss the increase in gnp and wealth globally through Thatcherism, and allowing private actors to allocate capital rather than the keynesian notion of state actors. Even Slick was a neoliberal, but Joseph Stiglitz has several books of self-criticism about the inequitable distribution of wealth.

Five years ago I'd have argued the middle class is better off than it was in 1980. Today, I'm not sure. In 2010, it scared the **** out of reasonable people to see the losses the 1% took. But anyone can google up stats showing they've not only been made whole, but done quite nicely. And unlike FDR, Obama didn't wipe out the shareholders of banks when recapitalizing them. And even now, the guy has no clue as to how biz works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/bankings-got-a-new-critic.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bank%20regulations&st=cse

Of course the gop seems intent on running a guy who actually said sensuality is part of satan's attack on america.

I still think if the GOP had gotten behind Huntsman, and held the Rabid Right at bay, they would have won. Now, I don't think they have a chance. Especially after all this religious crap and the contraception stuff. The women's vote headed for the exits on that one, IMO. I don't get their psycho reaction to Obama. Twenty years ago, he would have been a moderate Republican.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 03:46 PM
No.

Putting someone's religion "up for a vote" is unconstitutional, just as putting civil liberties up for a vote is unconstitutional. There are many things that can and do influence people's vote. That does not make it right.

Religion should not be part of the discussion, for the very reason that you stated: people are ignorant enough to vote based on their perceived belief about said religion. Romney's Mormonism, Santorum's Catholicism, Obama's Christianity should not even enter into the debate. You can talk about values without interjecting religion, and to me, an even bigger issue than campaign finance reform is religious freedom reform...that is, no one running for public office or giving money to those running for office should be allowed to question someone's religion.

No mention of God in the US Constitution, folks. Religion shouldn't play a role in politics. End of story.

I heard a voter in Michigan on the radio this AM say he's voting for Father Santorum because "Santorum shares my values. Religion is important to me."

Like Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ;D

houghtam
02-22-2012, 03:55 PM
I heard a voter in Michigan on the radio this AM say he's voting for Father Santorum because "Santorum shares my values. Religion is important to me."

Like Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ;D

Yeah, and I have no problem admitting that it goes both ways for every issue. I'm sure there are thousands of people who voted for Obama just because he's black, just as there were thousands who voted against him because he's black. Its frustrating because that's something you can't ignore. We can't put candidates behind a screen with one of those weird I'm-hiding-from-the-mafia voices.

We can, however, get our heads out of our asses and recognize that the government was never intended to be a religious institution.

Churchill was a very intelligent man, but I think Bill Murray said it better in Groundhog Day:

"People like blood sausage too. People are morons."

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 03:58 PM
Yeah, and I have no problem admitting that it goes both ways for every issue. I'm sure there are thousands of people who voted for Obama just because he's black, just as there were thousands who voted against him because he's black. Its frustrating because that's something you can't ignore. We can't put candidates behind a screen with one of those weird I'm-hiding-from-the-mafia voices.

We can, however, get our heads out of our asses and recognize that the government was never intended to be a religious institution.

Churchill was a very intelligent man, but I think Bill Murray said it better in Groundhog Day:

"People like blood sausage too. People are morons."

Boudin? Vous plaisantez, non?

houghtam
02-22-2012, 04:03 PM
Boudin? Vous plaisantez, non?

Call me Bronco.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 05:07 PM
No.

Putting someone's religion "up for a vote" is unconstitutional, just as putting civil liberties up for a vote is unconstitutional. There are many things that can and do influence people's vote. That does not make it right.

Religion should not be part of the discussion, for the very reason that you stated: people are ignorant enough to vote based on their perceived belief about said religion. Romney's Mormonism, Santorum's Catholicism, Obama's Christianity should not even enter into the debate. You can talk about values without interjecting religion, and to me, an even bigger issue than campaign finance reform is religious freedom reform...that is, no one running for public office or giving money to those running for office should be allowed to question someone's religion.

No mention of God in the US Constitution, folks. Religion shouldn't play a role in politics. End of story.

Putting someone's religion up for election is not unconstitutional. Requiring a religious test, however, is. He's welcome to run as whatever he wants to be. Whether he wins or not is a different story. I'm all for taking away some voting rights but until we do, we have to put up with the idiots and their idiotic reasons for voting how they vote. Manipulating the constitution to claim it says something it doesn't is unacceptable, however, and that's what you guys are trying to do here.

houghtam
02-22-2012, 05:55 PM
Putting someone's religion up for election is not unconstitutional. Requiring a religious test, however, is. He's welcome to run as whatever he wants to be. Whether he wins or not is a different story. I'm all for taking away some voting rights but until we do, we have to put up with the idiots and their idiotic reasons for voting how they vote. Manipulating the constitution to claim it says something it doesn't is unacceptable, however, and that's what you guys are trying to do here.

It all depends on your interpretation of the word "test", and once again there's a reason the framers didn't spell it out, just like there is for just about everything else they put in there. It's not manipulation at all.

Does the right to bear "arms" give you the right to own a missile launcher? What about a nuke?

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 06:20 PM
It all depends on your interpretation of the word "test", and once again there's a reason the framers didn't spell it out, just like there is for just about everything else they put in there. It's not manipulation at all.

Does the right to bear "arms" give you the right to own a missile launcher? What about a nuke?

Totally different situations.

For humor's sake since logic doesn't get through, how do you propose we outlaw whatever it is you're claiming they're doing?

houghtam
02-22-2012, 06:37 PM
Totally different situations.

For humor's sake since logic doesn't get through, how do you propose we outlaw whatever it is you're claiming they're doing?

I don't agree that they're different at all. It all goes back to whether the Constitution is to be interpreted or taken literally. You cannot choose to interpret one part and take another part literally.

In answer to your question, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, so I couldn't begin to propose a solution, but as Rohirrim pointed out, once it comes up, people think it's true. A good start would be to outlaw any reference to religion, God, etc. in any official debate.

Now please understand that I'm not an idiot. If you read my posts, I fully acknowledge that this would likely never happen. But I can only imagine the great things this nation could accomplish if religion were simply not part of the discussion.

On a side note and in fantasy world, it really would be nice if we COULD somehow put the candidates behind a screen, give their qualifications and their views on some of the major issues, and then have people vote. We did this in a political science class of mine once, and held a vote for President and Vice-President old-school-like, where the top two vote-getters were elected POTUS and VP, respectively. It was interesting to note that Martin Luther King, Jr. was elected POTUS...I forget who got VP. I didn't vote for the guy, though...he had a PhD in theology. ;D

Cito Pelon
02-22-2012, 06:45 PM
I think in 2008 there were some gopers who did support something along the lines of Bowles Simpson, and esp in the Senate, there was a notion that the top 1% had really seen a change in their wealth BECAUSE of Bushii alterations to the tax system, i.e. wealth redisptribution by the govt for the pure purpose of wealth redistribution. Perhaps, this redistribution was unintended by some who voted for them, but imo it was Bushii's plan all along, and that's how he essentially bought the nomination in 2000. It made Forbes a non-factor to the gop. And, bushii compined the the tax cut for the country club republicans and chamber of commerce with his born again bona fides.

But a funny thing happened. Bushii's legacy was those of us who are normally conservative on econ issues but moderate/libertarian on social issues couldn't stomach what bushii did to this country between his elective war and looting of the treasury. So much for the gop mantra of peace and prosperity. McCain should have appealed to us, but he was not only out of touch economically but he seemed intent with attacking Iran.

And then Obama pushed through porkulus and obamacare. I realize porkulus staved off 25% unemployment, but when David Obey answered the question of "won't some of these dog park programs be wasteful and have fraud" with "so what," conservatives were very annoyed. Reagan's mime of the most frighening words in English "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you" are engrained in a majority of voters. Sure, bailing out the banks and GM and keeping state's from massive worker layoffs was all necessary, but the good done was politically destroyed.

And then, Obamacare. Sure, govt had to do something, but having the govt dictate what is covered? That's politically insane. And, imo culturally destructive.

So, we had the teaparty sprout. The Teaparty isn't monolithic. It runs the gammit from von Mises misreaders of Hayek to old white people with signs "don't socialize my medicare." But the upshot is that Obama's policies were divisive. They were elitist and liberal and there was a legitimate social pushback. Grover Norquist's sworn duty is to make sure the top 1% do not pay a greater % of income/tax than they do today. Coupled with that there's Freedom Works whose eventual mission is to privitize social security and medicare ... and return medicaid to private charity, and we might as well toss in eliminate the clean air and water acts.

I really don't know where we go from here. My guess is Santorum will be the nominee, and for the life of me I don't see how a man can be elected favoring forced birthing of rape victims is the work of God, and that to think otherwise is becase Satan has blinded you from the truth, literally. At least I pray he cannot be. The good thing about the gop is that generally the nominee is the guy who washes the hands of the state parties and governors, and no one is better than that than Poppy Bush's two sons.

Yeah, that 'porkulus' or Jobs for America or whatever was easily about 1/3 too much $$$$$. The ultra-left got way too involved with that, and the ultra right didn't want to increase taxes on the wealthy to help pay for it.

It's difficult to totally negate the wings of both parties, they have to be appeased to get the votes. The GOP is having that problem.

I'm fine with both wings having some input, they have to be included in govt, but often they're the most godawfulest people to work with. They don't listen to anybody elses POV. They're a heavy cross to bear, so to speak.

Rohirrim
02-22-2012, 07:49 PM
Totally different situations.

For humor's sake since logic doesn't get through, how do you propose we outlaw whatever it is you're claiming they're doing?

I didn't say it violated the Constitution. I said it violates the "spirit" of the Constitution. A serious candidate for president, with respect for our founding ideals, should not go there.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 08:23 PM
I didn't say it violated the Constitution. I said it violates the "spirit" of the Constitution. A serious candidate for president, with respect for our founding ideals, should not go there.

In the 2nd post on the matter you did. In your first post, you clearly stated that it was unconstitutional to do yet the candidates were publicly doing so. At least when you backpedal you're making an effort to correct yourself rather than fight to the death on an inaccurate statement so you should get minimal credit for that but it doesn't change the original point.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 08:29 PM
I don't agree that they're different at all. It all goes back to whether the Constitution is to be interpreted or taken literally. You cannot choose to interpret one part and take another part literally.

In answer to your question, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, so I couldn't begin to propose a solution, but as Rohirrim pointed out, once it comes up, people think it's true. A good start would be to outlaw any reference to religion, God, etc. in any official debate.

Now please understand that I'm not an idiot. If you read my posts, I fully acknowledge that this would likely never happen. But I can only imagine the great things this nation could accomplish if religion were simply not part of the discussion.

On a side note and in fantasy world, it really would be nice if we COULD somehow put the candidates behind a screen, give their qualifications and their views on some of the major issues, and then have people vote. We did this in a political science class of mine once, and held a vote for President and Vice-President old-school-like, where the top two vote-getters were elected POTUS and VP, respectively. It was interesting to note that Martin Luther King, Jr. was elected POTUS...I forget who got VP. I didn't vote for the guy, though...he had a PhD in theology. ;D

If you're not going to interpret the constitution literally, why have the ability to amend it? You could just accept what they actually meant and go with it. They did a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why not do one to ban excessively large caliber weaponry? It would lend more credibility to the document because once you just start interpreting it as you want, the whole document falls apart.

And there's a lot of things that we could do if we could limit people's freedoms. Until that happens, though, people are what they are. To limit someone's religious discussion is quite ignorant, in my opinion. I'd take religious rhetoric over constant knobbing of the old and the poor. We all have our preferences but have to deal with the crap we don't really want to hear about. And this is coming from someone who would prefer not to hear about the religion as well but it's just much further down my list than a lot of other things.

Cito Pelon
02-22-2012, 09:19 PM
I see Obama proposes reducing the corporate tax rate, in return some loopholes are closed. An attempt to streamline the tax code. I'm ok with it, I'm tired of big corporations paying less in taxes than they pay their CEO's.

And I'm behind the Justice Dept going after overseas accounts. There's too much revenue being hidden. I'm sure there will be screams about "It's a bad environment for big business! Woe will be upon us!" or some such garbage. It's not, and it won't. It's smart.

snowspot66
02-22-2012, 09:42 PM
If you're not going to interpret the constitution literally, why have the ability to amend it? You could just accept what they actually meant and go with it.

Well it's incredibly difficult to amend, is centuries old, and in some cases very vague. It's impossible to interpret literally in all cases. Especially when dealing with issues that they couldn't even imagine ever existing.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 10:19 PM
Well it's incredibly difficult to amend, is centuries old, and in some cases very vague. It's impossible to interpret literally in all cases. Especially when dealing with issues that they couldn't even imagine ever existing.

Agreed. But I think that's intended so as to limit the speed and authority which the federal government can assume over the populous. It's a lot easier for states to make laws than for a single law to be created which governs all. If, however, 2/3rds of the states think they should all be governed, there's a process for that.

Seems the constitution would work fine if people would stop saying it's too much work and there's easier routes. I believe it's cumbersome for a reason.

That One Guy
02-22-2012, 10:20 PM
I see Obama proposes reducing the corporate tax rate, in return some loopholes are closed. An attempt to streamline the tax code. I'm ok with it, I'm tired of big corporations paying less in taxes than they pay their CEO's.

And I'm behind the Justice Dept going after overseas accounts. There's too much revenue being hidden. I'm sure there will be screams about "It's a bad environment for big business! Woe will be upon us!" or some such garbage. It's not, and it won't. It's smart.

As with anything, the ideas they have are fine and dandy but it comes down to implementation.

Taco John
02-23-2012, 02:54 AM
The Real Delegate Score: Romney 93, Paul 82

Tue, 02/21/2012 - 08:26


Every media outlet seems to have a different delegate count. But almost invariably we're told Ron Paul is in last place and far behind the leader Mitt Romney.

But none of these delegate counters properly estimate how the caucuses will allocate their delegates. According to the Paul campaign, Ron is well positioned to win 50% of the delegates in Iowa, 75% in Minnesota, 50% in Colorado, and 75% in Maine. So what is likely to be the true delegate count once the caucus states select their national delegates?

Add together the bound delegates from New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, and extrapolate the caucus states' delegates using the Paul campaign's estimates and you get:

Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)
Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

*Unpledged includes Huntsman's delegates in NH as well as unbound party leader delegates in certain states.

The caucus/convention process for selecting delegates has plenty of quirks along the way - the eventual delegates could be more evenly dispersed or could skew even more heavily to Paul as the majority candidate. But this is a far more accurate portrayal of the true state of play than allocating delegates proportionately to the straw poll or entirely to the straw poll leader.

And it shows that, for now, this is a two-man race in delegates between Paul and Romney.

http://www.dailypaul.com/214504/the-real-delegate-score-romney-93-paul-82

Taco John
02-23-2012, 03:23 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L_acSK63fN8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

alkemical
02-23-2012, 06:53 AM
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/santorum-campaign-suggests-romney-may-have-done-deal-to-make-ron-paul-his-running-mate.html

Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate

alkemical
02-23-2012, 07:15 AM
http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/U4QYQa6Qqhc/congressional-staffers-and-the.html

http://craphound.com/images/staffChart_departing.png.jpg

Nicko from the Sunlight Foundation sez, "Today the Sunlight Foundation continued an investigation of how congressional offices operate with a closer look at the ever-present "Revolving Door." The new analysis, covering 2009 to 2011, found at least 378 House staffers left Congress and became registered lobbyists, according to a review of U.S. House disbursement data and federal lobbying records. This group of former House offices and committee staffers includes 50 legislative assistants, 32 chiefs of staff, 26 legislative directors and 22 staff assistants who moved from Capitol Hill to K Street. The Sunlight Foundation's senior fellow, Lee Drutman, concludes:"

Congress continues to operate as a farm team for future lobbyists. Staff build up contacts and policy and political expertise. Then they often go "downtown" and cash in, taking their expertise and networks with them. Though a certain flow of personnel from Congress to K Street is inevitable, Congress ought to do more to hold onto experienced staff. Recently, we explored retention rates among House staff, and we found that offices that paid their staff more had slightly higher retention rates, though Hill salaries lag behind private sector comparisons. When staff leaves to lobby, their former offices must find somebody new and usually less experienced. And offices who lack staff with policy expertise and political relationships often must rely more on outside lobbyists, who are only too happy to fill the gap.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/22/house-revolving-door/

BroncoInferno
02-23-2012, 07:32 AM
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/santorum-campaign-suggests-romney-may-have-done-deal-to-make-ron-paul-his-running-mate.html

Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate

Nobody is going to pick a VP candidate who contradicts the top of the ticket at every turn, as Paul would Romney. Unless, of course, Paul agrees to cowtow to Romney's platform, in which case Paul would prove himself a sell out and lose all the appeal he had. Either way, it would be a nonsensical combo for the GOP.

alkemical
02-23-2012, 07:49 AM
http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/2/22/20/anigif_enhanced-buzz-7864-1329962323-161.gif

That One Guy
02-23-2012, 08:51 AM
Nobody is going to pick a VP candidate who contradicts the top of the ticket at every turn, as Paul would Romney. Unless, of course, Paul agrees to cowtow to Romney's platform, in which case Paul would prove himself a sell out and lose all the appeal he had. Either way, it would be a nonsensical combo for the GOP.

Good point. I agree.

bendog
02-23-2012, 08:53 AM
Women, they can never make up their minds

http://news.yahoo.com/winners-losers-final-gop-debate-052122037--abc-news.html

Kaylore
02-23-2012, 08:55 AM
The Real Delegate Score: Romney 93, Paul 82

Tue, 02/21/2012 - 08:26


Every media outlet seems to have a different delegate count. But almost invariably we're told Ron Paul is in last place and far behind the leader Mitt Romney.

But none of these delegate counters properly estimate how the caucuses will allocate their delegates. According to the Paul campaign, Ron is well positioned to win 50% of the delegates in Iowa, 75% in Minnesota, 50% in Colorado, and 75% in Maine. So what is likely to be the true delegate count once the caucus states select their national delegates?

Add together the bound delegates from New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, and extrapolate the caucus states' delegates using the Paul campaign's estimates and you get:

Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)
Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

*Unpledged includes Huntsman's delegates in NH as well as unbound party leader delegates in certain states.

The caucus/convention process for selecting delegates has plenty of quirks along the way - the eventual delegates could be more evenly dispersed or could skew even more heavily to Paul as the majority candidate. But this is a far more accurate portrayal of the true state of play than allocating delegates proportionately to the straw poll or entirely to the straw poll leader.

And it shows that, for now, this is a two-man race in delegates between Paul and Romney.

http://www.dailypaul.com/214504/the-real-delegate-score-romney-93-paul-82



....according to Ron Paul. Sure he does. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/iaqdppai.gif

Rohirrim
02-23-2012, 10:25 AM
http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/2/22/20/anigif_enhanced-buzz-7864-1329962323-161.gif

Manny, Moe and Jack. ;D

Rohirrim
02-23-2012, 10:26 AM
....according to Ron Paul. Sure he does. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/iaqdppai.gif

All Ron Paul is earning his self is a nice speech at the convention in prime time.

TonyR
02-23-2012, 02:10 PM
Re last night's debate...

The race has come down to Santorum and Romney, and they both failed to distinguish themselves tonight. Both repeatedly offered convoluted answers in the attempt to establish trivial points. As everyone's noted, Romney's success at hall-packing made him look like a winner even though he's losing to Rick Freaking Santorum. ... I am ashamed of and afraid for my country.http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/republican-nomination-5

That One Guy
02-23-2012, 02:13 PM
Re last night's debate...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/republican-nomination-5

I'd like to see one of two results:

Someone decent wins the nomination and the GE. I don't see it happening.

The Rs get blown out of the water so they know better than to parade clowns in front of us again.

The Tea Party movement from a few years ago had potential (for my viewpoints) but they've floundered. If the religious keep pushing to the top of the pile, we could become effectively a one party country until the stubbornness subsides.

BroncoBeavis
02-23-2012, 02:28 PM
Re last night's debate...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/republican-nomination-5

Things get infinitely more difficult once "Buy now, Pay Later" has been taken off the table.

bendog
02-23-2012, 03:03 PM
I disagree about the religious right really being an issue. There's nothing wrong with being religious, or even judging candidates in light of one's own beliefs. To be a gop candidate, one is going to have to hold some bedrock views on abortion and gays. Santorum is nuts, and probably so are the few people actually voting for him, but this is less about his craziness than Romney's ability to articulate a reasonable econ plan.

So long as the gop refuses to go along with broadening what is taxed in exchange for lower rates, they're just not gonna appeal to the housholds making 65K-120K. And that involves at least not raising the total amt they pay, and 60% of all voters consistently say the total the top 1% pays is not as much as it should be ... but when voters are asked it that should go to more spending, then support for any raise dies out.

Nikki Haley and Chris Christie are not Norquist idealogues. Neither is Jeb. But the econ is slowly getting better, and no matter who the gop runs, obama will contend he's cleaning up Jr's mess, and there's some truth to that, though I think the improvement is due more to Big Ben the Bernank than the dems. In 2016, who do the dims have? Biden? Hillary?

Drek
02-23-2012, 04:11 PM
I disagree about the religious right really being an issue. There's nothing wrong with being religious, or even judging candidates in light of one's own beliefs. To be a gop candidate, one is going to have to hold some bedrock views on abortion and gays. Santorum is nuts, and probably so are the few people actually voting for him, but this is less about his craziness than Romney's ability to articulate a reasonable econ plan.

So long as the gop refuses to go along with broadening what is taxed in exchange for lower rates, they're just not gonna appeal to the housholds making 65K-120K. And that involves at least not raising the total amt they pay, and 60% of all voters consistently say the total the top 1% pays is not as much as it should be ... but when voters are asked it that should go to more spending, then support for any raise dies out.

Nikki Haley and Chris Christie are not Norquist idealogues. Neither is Jeb. But the econ is slowly getting better, and no matter who the gop runs, obama will contend he's cleaning up Jr's mess, and there's some truth to that, though I think the improvement is due more to Big Ben the Bernank than the dems. In 2016, who do the dims have? Biden? Hillary?
Evan Bayh and possibly Elizabeth Warren, though Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a bad option to follow Obama, working as the Sec. of State with the ability to rally a national network from 2008 quickly for the 2016 run.

Dexter
02-23-2012, 04:27 PM
Evan Bayh and possibly Elizabeth Warren, though Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a bad option to follow Obama, working as the Sec. of State with the ability to rally a national network from 2008 quickly for the 2016 run.

I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heart beat. Hillary Clinton, not so much.

Dexter
02-23-2012, 04:35 PM
I disagree about the religious right really being an issue. There's nothing wrong with being religious, or even judging candidates in light of one's own beliefs. To be a gop candidate, one is going to have to hold some bedrock views on abortion and gays. Santorum is nuts, and probably so are the few people actually voting for him, but this is less about his craziness than Romney's ability to articulate a reasonable econ plan.

So long as the gop refuses to go along with broadening what is taxed in exchange for lower rates, they're just not gonna appeal to the housholds making 65K-120K. And that involves at least not raising the total amt they pay, and 60% of all voters consistently say the total the top 1% pays is not as much as it should be ... but when voters are asked it that should go to more spending, then support for any raise dies out.

Nikki Haley and Chris Christie are not Norquist idealogues. Neither is Jeb. But the econ is slowly getting better, and no matter who the gop runs, obama will contend he's cleaning up Jr's mess, and there's some truth to that, though I think the improvement is due more to Big Ben the Bernank than the dems. In 2016, who do the dims have? Biden? Hillary?


While I agree that there's nothing wrong with being religious, there is something to be said about people who can accept that there are people who have different beliefs. At least personally, I think that's where the really religious right rub me the wrong way. Because it seems as if many of the religious right would love to force their "moral" standards onto other people.

Somehow contraception is a BAD thing, people who are gay are "sinners" etc etc. Religion should have no power in government, as the government should be there only to protect the people, not serve the interests of one particular religion. What's wrong with extremely limited government, protecting its people? Also, why do we have to have so many federal laws? States should have more say. I think that's a conservative viewpoint, but then again, what is a conservative in this country anymore?

Kaylore
02-23-2012, 04:39 PM
Anne Coulter is endorsing Romney. She's not a king maker, but she feeds the hard-core conservatives red meat rhetoric. This will help Romney.

BroncoBeavis
02-23-2012, 04:51 PM
While I agree that there's nothing wrong with being religious, there is something to be said about people who can accept that there are people who have different beliefs. At least personally, I think that's where the really religious right rub me the wrong way. Because it seems as if many of the religious right would love to force their "moral" standards onto other people.

Somehow contraception is a BAD thing, people who are gay are "sinners" etc etc. Religion should have no power in government, as the government should be there only to protect the people, not serve the interests of one particular religion. What's wrong with extremely limited government, protecting its people? Also, why do we have to have so many federal laws? States should have more say. I think that's a conservative viewpoint, but then again, what is a conservative in this country anymore?

I think, at least in some parts, your confusion is due to a conflation of issues. On the one hand you voice issues with enforcing moral beliefs on others. On the other hand you want to force religious employers to pay for contraception they think is immoral.

Square that up and I think the ideology will make more sense to you.

Play2win
02-23-2012, 05:24 PM
I would contest that being a believer and being religious are two entirely different things.

Rohirrim
02-23-2012, 05:31 PM
Evan Bayh and possibly Elizabeth Warren, though Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a bad option to follow Obama, working as the Sec. of State with the ability to rally a national network from 2008 quickly for the 2016 run.

I could also see Biden taking his retirement and Hillary stepping into the VP role. I doubt she can take another four years of SOS. She's spent the last three years on airplanes. Must get old.

Dexter
02-23-2012, 06:19 PM
I think, at least in some parts, your confusion is due to a conflation of issues. On the one hand you voice issues with enforcing moral beliefs on others. On the other hand you want to force religious employers to pay for contraception they think is immoral.

Square that up and I think the ideology will make more sense to you.





I've never said this. In fact, I don't understand why employers should have control over ANYONE's healthcare. I think healthcare should be a personal affordable choice, not one that is offered by an employer. This is the kind of **** that happens, when other people have control over someone else health. Its like saying your employer should have control over who you marry. Its simply stupid to me.


Contraception is something that Santorum and the extreme religious right would LOVE to regulate. If they had their way, there would be ZERO contraception in this country, and no choice for women to decide what happens with their sexual reproductive system. Thats MY problem with how the far right feels about contraception. This is THEM pushing their standards on other people.


Universal health care would be nice, but we'd rather blow our money getting our young people maimed or killed in unnecessary conflicts around the globe.

That One Guy
02-23-2012, 06:42 PM
I disagree about the religious right really being an issue. There's nothing wrong with being religious, or even judging candidates in light of one's own beliefs. To be a gop candidate, one is going to have to hold some bedrock views on abortion and gays. Santorum is nuts, and probably so are the few people actually voting for him, but this is less about his craziness than Romney's ability to articulate a reasonable econ plan.

So long as the gop refuses to go along with broadening what is taxed in exchange for lower rates, they're just not gonna appeal to the housholds making 65K-120K. And that involves at least not raising the total amt they pay, and 60% of all voters consistently say the total the top 1% pays is not as much as it should be ... but when voters are asked it that should go to more spending, then support for any raise dies out.

Nikki Haley and Chris Christie are not Norquist idealogues. Neither is Jeb. But the econ is slowly getting better, and no matter who the gop runs, obama will contend he's cleaning up Jr's mess, and there's some truth to that, though I think the improvement is due more to Big Ben the Bernank than the dems. In 2016, who do the dims have? Biden? Hillary?

I agree there's no problem with it but I don't think it's the biggest problem on the table right now. These people aren't offering much more than religious rhetoric when there's a time coming when decisions that could alter the country will have to be made and their politics revolve around abortion and contraception. It sounds like they have a preacher rather than a potential president and that's not what we need right now. That shows either an obsession with those topics or a disconnect from what really matters.

houghtam
02-23-2012, 06:57 PM
Contraception is something that Santorum and the extreme religious right would LOVE to regulate. If they had their way, there would be ZERO contraception in this country, and no choice for women to decide what happens with their sexual reproductive system.

And then when our population balloons over 30 years and unemployment is 40%, it will be the poor's fault for not using the rhythm method.

LOL

Taco John
02-23-2012, 06:58 PM
....according to Ron Paul. Sure he does. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/iaqdppai.gif

I can only speak to what I read on the forums, and a lot of Paul people are getting elected as delegates. I'm actually going to a meeting this weekend with Paul supporters for caucus training. I'm going to run as a delegate in my county so that I can vote for Paul. I don't know if other candidates are having formal pre-caucus meetings to get to know eachother and plan on how and who they will vote for in the caucus delegate process, but I do know that this is happening all over the nation for Paul. I expect I'll get elected as a delegate for the county convention easily.