PDA

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


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

houghtam
05-16-2012, 11:41 AM
In other words, it's ok to carve out another 'special' niche, exclude others, and then still call it equal protection.

Would the 15th Amendment have ever passed if they had included women in on the right to vote at the time? No. Was it still the right thing to do? Yes.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 11:51 AM
Would the 15th Amendment have ever passed if they had included women in on the right to vote at the time? No. Was it still the right thing to do? Yes.

Except in this case it's about what word is used to describe it more than any practical implication (like the ability to vote)

houghtam
05-16-2012, 12:14 PM
Except in this case it's about what word is used to describe it more than any practical implication (like the ability to vote)

Correct, but it's about what word the government uses. And the government cannot condone discrimination. You can call a union between two people whatever you want. The government cannot if it is going to offer benefits to those who use the privilege. That's the very essence of separate but equal.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 12:33 PM
Correct, but it's about what word the government uses. And the government cannot condone discrimination. You can call a union between two people whatever you want. The government cannot if it is going to offer benefits to those who use the privilege. That's the very essence of separate but equal.

I just don't agree that different terminology equals discrimination. Otherwise the government discriminates by grouping people by race.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Rohirrim
05-16-2012, 12:38 PM
It occurs to me that this argument has been going on a long time. At one time we were foragers. Hunter/gatherers. Our societies were completely egalitarian. They had to be for our survival. Everybody shared everything. Then we switched to sedentary living, about 10,000 years ago. We developed agriculture and domesticated sheep and goats (we already had dogs). Then, we had to invent private property, specialized jobs and a hierarchical structure to make the sedentary system work. After that came city-states and kings. Then along came the idea of democracy and democratic republics. That's political. But we're still arguing over how the economics should work.

It's seems to me you have two fringes: Those who want to share everything and those who want to share nothing. Both extremes are idiotic. Sharing everything makes a nice utopia, but should only seriously be considered among kindergardeners. Sharing nothing is just as stupid. It's basically an ego trip, based on the delusion that all your wealth came to you because you're so wonderful, nobody else had anything to do with it and you don't owe anybody anything. Ever notice that many who rise to the top have this kind of sociopathic personality? Between the two extremes lie pretty much everybody else.

So the question is, how much should be shared? To answer that, you have to answer how big should government be. What should it do? Some say we shouldn't have Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, Social Security or any social program like it. Let everybody fend for themselves. If you fail, too bad. Of course, those programs didn't arise out of thin air. They were devised as a fix for a problem: What to do with those who are no longer productive enough to fend for themselves.

So what? Let their families take care of them. Let them get out of the way in whichever way suits them. What that position disregards is that mankind has created an artificial world and forced everybody to live in it. It's a compact. A social contract. We have created a hierarchical world of production, services, capital and jobs. You agree to work within the system and in return you will receive a livelihood, security, education, and all the things you need to bring up your own family. Those on the capital side, agree to create jobs. They will keep the money flowing in the markets. They will invest in your communities, states and nations. Hand in hand, we will all build up our society, or nation, together, and everybody benefits; The capitalist from the return on his investment, the workers from their salaries. Both sides, labor and capital, will chip in to maintain a government that will protect the system from inside and out.

To overcome some of the flaws inherent in the system, America developed progressive taxation: It says that we recognize that the capital system is not perfect. There will be gaps. It is cyclical. Why should those at the top pay more when they take all the risk? Because they don't take all the risk, because they use more services, and because they reap a greater share of benefits. Society builds the infrastructure that allows them to transport the goods they profit from. Society educates their workers. Society chips in and provides for the common defense of them, their capital, and their assets. Obviously, the more assets you have, the more protection you require. Society also protects the markets they operate in, regulating commerce, prosecuting fraud, maintaining tariffs that protect their bottom line. If you risk and fail, or fail through no fault of your own, or fail simply because somebody above you made a bad decision, we devised a safety net.

Of course, as we recently learned, some of those at the top are "too big to fail" so the workers have to pay their taxes over to those who wrecked the economy, protecting them, keeping them in their wealth, while the reverberations of their monumental errors (due to a failure of government regulation) causes many of those taxpaying workers to lose their jobs and homes. Meanwhile, many want to further punish those workers by eliminating the government safety net while continuing to lavish more tax breaks on those who don't need them. Their theory is that if the capitalist is raking it in, all other boats will rise. It will trickle down. The taxation will go down, but will increase in volume. Of course, the rich in America now are richer than anybody has every been. Ever. And since 1980, their share of taxation has been reduced by more than 50% across the board. It would stand to reason that the rest of the nation should be really well-off, it that theory had any validity.

Because the capitalists take a bigger risk, they expect a bigger return. Then the question becomes, how big should it be? And what should happen to those workers who, through no fault of their own, end up on the losing side of the equation? Should there any moral component figured into our equation of winners and losers? Then, we have to ask what kind of world do we want to live in? Mexico City? Rio de Janeiro? Mumbai? Where the rich live in mansions on the hilltops and everybody else lives in gigantic, sprawling slums?

What happens when that system goes out of balance? What if the return to the winners grows larger and larger while more and more at the bottom, the losers, are just pushed out? What if the capitalists begin to make more money from gaming the system, from moving capital around, or by simply playing the currency markets, gambling on derivatives, etc., than they do from investing in the well-being of their respective nations by creating companies that create goods and provide jobs? Why make things when it's much easier, cheaper and more cost effective to set up a global, fee-based feudalism? Why pay taxes to government? Let everybody pay taxes to the corporations?
What if these corporate giants begin to believe that they don't owe any nation, state or community anything? What if their philosophy changes and they decide that the only thing that matters is quarterly statements and shareholder return, regardless of who those shareholders are, or where they reside? Then, of course, the social contract has been rescinded. They have opted out.

The corporation then supersedes the community. The factories get moved to where the greatest return on investment can be had, with complete disregard for community, state or nation. Perhaps a new political movement can be launched which attempts to obliterate even the concept of "nation." We're all one global family, after all. Why shouldn't all the workers, everywhere, be paid the same? Why should one nation's workers deserve more than any other's?

So many on the corporate side of the equation now seem to find taxation insulting. Unfair. After all, they are global corporations. Why should they chip in to maintain any one country's infrastructure? It's the new aristocracy. The new barons, earls and lords. The corporate lords. They don't have to build their castle on a hilltop in your country. They can build it anywhere in the world. Whoever gives them the best discount. They can buy politicians in any country to give them the best regulatory and tax environment. They can play nation against nation, state against state, community against community. They can even buy worldwide media that hammers out the message 24/7 that making the rich even richer will lead to everybody being rich. Cheaper TVs for all! After all, government is the evil in this world. Especially a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's the worst kind of government of them all. Always cheaper to buy off a couple of dictators than a whole, stinking, representative government. If only we could figure out some way to shrink that government down to a size where we could drown it in a bathtub!

The social contract has been broken. And now they want the workers to live with it. The new serfdom. This is where the city/state has evolved to: Greed is good. 10,000 years and we're back to the same old story.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 12:42 PM
I just don't agree that different terminology equals discrimination. Otherwise the government discriminates by grouping people by race.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

So just out of curiosity, is there a problem if a state offers a public school education to both gay and straight people, but just requires them to do so separately? They're both getting the same education. Heck, they're both getting the same free education. Double heck, they're even both called schools.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 12:49 PM
The corporation then supersedes the community. The factories get moved to where the greatest return on investment can be had, with complete disregard for community, state or nation. Perhaps a new political movement can be launched which attempts to obliterate even the concept of "nation." We're all one global family, after all. Why shouldn't all the workers, everywhere, be paid the same? Why should one nation's workers deserve more than any other's?

So many on the corporate side of the equation now seem to find taxation insulting. Unfair. After all, they are global corporations. Why should they chip in to maintain any one country's infrastructure? It's the new aristocracy. The new barons, earls and lords. The corporate lords. They don't have to build their castle on a hilltop in your country. They can build it anywhere in the world. Whoever gives them the best discount. They can buy politicians in any country to give them the best regulatory and tax environment. They can play nation against nation, state against state, community against community. They can even buy worldwide media that hammers out the message 24/7 that making the rich even richer will lead to everybody being rich. Cheaper TVs for all! After all, government is the evil in this world. Especially a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's the worst kind of government of them all. Always cheaper to buy off a couple of dictators than a whole, stinking, representative government. If only we could figure out some way to shrink that government down to a size where we could drown it in a bathtub!

Nice post. I especially liked this part. But you also forgot to add the part where the corporations legislated in order to actually have themselves considered people. Oh and the part where millions of people vote continually against their own self interests, giving power to the very "people" (read: corporations) who want to take their rights away.

Paladin
05-16-2012, 01:21 PM
A couple of additional details separates this culture from the Marxist or "share everything" view. Workers, if they have some capital or by compensation, can invest in the corporations to share in the earnings. However, the number of Shares is not likely to be more than minimal. Further, the elitist are not at all concerned about the deterioration of the education systems because it eliminates the competition. Although some Corporations seem to be waking up to the problem

Otherwise, Ro, you have nailed it.


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

Rohirrim
05-16-2012, 01:25 PM
A couple of additional details separates this culture from the Marxist or "share everything" view. Workers, if they have some capital or by compensation, can invest in the corporations to share in the earnings. However, the number of Shares is not likely to be more than minimal. Further, the elitist are not at all concerned about the deterioration of the education systems because it eliminates the competition. Although some Corporations seem to be waking up to the problem

Otherwise, Ro, you have nailed it.


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

I guess my whole point is that we devised a government through which we would make the decisions that govern our lives, but I don't believe that to be the case anymore. The default always seems to be some kind of feudalism, and I think we've allowed ourselves to backslide into it, as a people, once again.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 01:33 PM
I guess my whole point is that we devised a government through which we would make the decisions that govern our lives, but I don't believe that to be the case anymore. The default always seems to be some kind of feudalism, and I think we've allowed ourselves to backslide into it, as a people, once again.

As George Carlin put it in his last show (edit: second-to-last):

There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don’t want that. I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting ****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 ****in’ years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly ****tier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your ****in' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this ****in' place. It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hard-working people: white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good, honest, hard-working people continue — these are people of modest means — continue to elect these rich **********s who don’t give a **** about them. They don’t give a **** about you. They don’t give a **** about you. They don’t care about you at all! At all! At all! And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their a-holes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 01:46 PM
So just out of curiosity, is there a problem if a state offers a public school education to both gay and straight people, but just requires them to do so separately? They're both getting the same education. Heck, they're both getting the same free education. Double heck, they're even both called schools.

I never thought about it before, but you're right. Those boys and girls locker rooms were discriminatory. And not letting boys play girls sports? Needs some equal protection smackdown.

Sex ed classes separated by sex? Unconstitutional :)

houghtam
05-16-2012, 01:48 PM
I never thought about it before, but you're right. Those boys and girls locker rooms were discriminatory. And not letting boys play girls sports? Needs some equal protection smackdown.

Sex ed classes separated by sex? Unconstitutional :)

Excellent. I'd love to see a politician argue it this way. We'd have legalized same sex marriage in about 10 minutes.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 01:52 PM
Excellent. I'd love to see a politician argue it this way. We'd have legalized same sex marriage in about 10 minutes.

But he can't really use the phrase "same sex marriage" because it makes a distinction.

They're all just mariagable Americans, dammit :)

houghtam
05-16-2012, 02:44 PM
But he can't really use the phrase "same sex marriage" because it makes a distinction.

They're all just mariagable Americans, dammit :)

So would you be for or against a national amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman? Would you vote for someone who was for it? Do you really believe that initiative is based on trying to bring equality?

Requiem
05-16-2012, 02:53 PM
HoughtAM 2012

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 03:01 PM
So would you be for or against a national amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman? Would you vote for someone who was for it? Do you really believe that initiative is based on trying to bring equality?

Against... I think it's a state issue.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 03:02 PM
HoughtAM 2012

Not 35 yet. :)

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:03 PM
Not 35 yet. :)

lets run on the same ticket

boeats n Hoes 2028

Smiling Assassin27
05-16-2012, 03:04 PM
This just in: President Obama's budget voted on in the Senate. Defeated 99-0. Second verse, same as the first. Has there ever been a President who submitted a budget and got ZERO votes, not even from his own party? That's called a congressional neutering.

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:06 PM
Myopic post of the day award. ^^^^^^^^^

oubronco
05-16-2012, 03:06 PM
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/obama-drinking-a-beer.jpg

houghtam
05-16-2012, 03:07 PM
Against... I think it's a state issue.

Fair enough. And I'm assuming that you are voting for Romney, and your reasons for voting for Romney outweigh your disagreement with his stance on the national amendment to deny marriage rights to gays, is that correct?

Now on to the state issue. Would you support/have you supported a state amendment wherever you live to define marriage as one man and one woman? If so, why? If not, why not? Also, if, as you argued before "marriage" and "civil union" are simply words and there is not any other difference between the two, I wonder if you could ask yourself why you are so adamantly against simply doing away with that distinction?

Smiling Assassin27
05-16-2012, 03:08 PM
Myopic post of the day award. ^^^^^^^^^


I noticed you didn't answer the question. :giggle:

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:09 PM
I noticed you didn't answer the question. :giggle:

Use THOMAS. You are a big boy.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 03:10 PM
lets run on the same ticket

boeats n Hoes 2028

Requiem for a Houghtam 2028! Drugs and sex for all!

oubronco
05-16-2012, 03:10 PM
http://www.barackobamawebpage.com/images/barack_obama_whining.gif

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:13 PM
Requiem for a Houghtam 2028! Drugs and sex for all!

except fat rednecks and religious nuts

houghtam
05-16-2012, 03:17 PM
http://www.barackobamawebpage.com/images/barack_obama_whining.gif

your little gif spelled divisive wrong

oubronco
05-16-2012, 03:18 PM
I thought it was funny though didn't you

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:19 PM
your little gif spelled divisive wrong

LoL. Good catch.

http://unreasonablysafe.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/1morans.jpg?w=300&h=292

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:19 PM
I thought it was funny though didn't you

Disingenuous statements usually aren't funny.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 03:20 PM
Disingenuous statements usually aren't funny.

Especially when made by people who don't know what disingenuous means.

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:26 PM
Especially when made by people who don't know what disingenuous means.

Hilarious! Rep.

Requiem
05-16-2012, 03:32 PM
Dummy of the Day Award (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20120516_Pennsylvania_congressman_muffs_Mideast_me ssage.html)

"Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns," Pitts began. ". . .With the global war against terrorism, it is now incumbent on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat to clamp down on Palestinian extremists that have perpetuated violence and to restart a peace process."

Republicans in action. :curtsey:

Smiling Assassin27
05-16-2012, 03:56 PM
Ironically, the only time he inspires bipartisanship is when every single member of Congress metaphorically calls him a fool. Meanwhile, Requiem just goes on telling the rest of us how much smarter he is.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 04:15 PM
Ironically, the only time he inspires bipartisanship is when every single member of Congress metaphorically calls him a fool. Meanwhile, Requiem just goes on telling the rest of us how much smarter he is.

Do you have any real substance to add to the conversation? No? Take a hike, the grownups are talking.

Paladin
05-16-2012, 04:16 PM
Well.....he is!


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

Requiem
05-16-2012, 04:31 PM
Ironically, the only time he inspires bipartisanship is when every single member of Congress metaphorically calls him a fool. Meanwhile, Requiem just goes on telling the rest of us how much smarter he is.

When it comes to understanding civics and the political process, yes, my knowledge surpasses most on the forum and 99.9% of the American population. Education and viable experience in those areas help support that.

People have specialties. People excel in certain areas. It is clear when they do and do not. Just like a mechanical engineer is fifty million times smarter and more qualified to discuss matters in that field than I would be. Doc Broncenstein is a obviously a doctor. I would trust his judgment on health issues more than a used car salesman on the forum.

And that has nothing to do with my opinions on political issues. It is not about being "right" on issues.

There are people who are politically inept in this world. Deal with it.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 04:43 PM
Fair enough. And I'm assuming that you are voting for Romney, and your reasons for voting for Romney outweigh your disagreement with his stance on the national amendment to deny marriage rights to gays, is that correct?

I'd like to say I'm still up in the air on who I'm voting for. But who am I kidding at this point. :) There's nobody else to vote for. Out of 20 issues on which to vote for a President, I'd put this somewhere around 21. Maybe 22. If Obama was still on the Gay Ain't The Same train like he was up to a few days ago and Romney wanted to hand out same sex wedding tax credits, I'd still be voting for Romney.

Now on to the state issue. Would you support/have you supported a state amendment wherever you live to define marriage as one man and one woman? If so, why? If not, why not? Also, if, as you argued before "marriage" and "civil union" are simply words and there is not any other difference between the two, I wonder if you could ask yourself why you are so adamantly against simply doing away with that distinction?

It was a long time ago where I live. If I'm being honest, I'm sure I probably supported it, although I don't remember it being an issue I was in a big hurry to go vote on. My thinking has changed on it some since then. I think I used to wonder about what the big state privilege of Marriage really accomplished that couldn't be accomplished by some paperwork from a decent attorney. And in some respects, that's still the case. But I've had a few conversations with people with experience that made me think that's not always practical... and so I see no harm in a state streamlining that to make getting those benefits as accessible as traditional marriage.

Now to turn the table, what do you think about situations such as:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

houghtam
05-16-2012, 05:16 PM
I'd like to say I'm still up in the air on who I'm voting for. But who am I kidding at this point. :) There's nobody else to vote for. Out of 20 issues on which to vote for a President, I'd put this somewhere around 21. Maybe 22. If Obama was still on the Gay Ain't The Same train like he was up to a few days ago and Romney wanted to hand out same sex wedding tax credits, I'd still be voting for Romney.

Great. It's good to hear you aren't a single issue voter. Regardless of your beliefs, single issue voters are the single worst thing to happen to politics since, well, politicians. On that note, however, what do you think of Romney's decision to fire (excuse me, "allow to resign") a staffer because he's openly gay, and his more or less lack of any real defense as to why? Does this not say to you (along with all the rest of the actual political etch-a-sketch rewriting that he's done) that he will turn on anyone at a moment's notice? How long will it be before he sells out item #20 on your list of why you voted for him? #19? #'s 10-18? All of them?



It was a long time ago where I live. If I'm being honest, I'm sure I probably supported it, although I don't remember it being an issue I was in a big hurry to go vote on. My thinking has changed on it some since then. I think I used to wonder about what the big state privilege of Marriage really accomplished that couldn't be accomplished by some paperwork from a decent attorney. And in some respects, that's still the case. But I've had a few conversations with people with experience that made me think that's not always practical... and so I see no harm in a state streamlining that to make getting those benefits as accessible as traditional marriage.

Now to turn the table, what do you think about situations such as:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

It's a shame. As a former Catholic, that story deeply saddens me for a number of reasons. For one, the four bishops that made the decision on behalf of Catholic Charities of Boston despite unanimous disagreement from the 42-person board. They also neglected to take into account that LGBT couples are much more likely to adopt children who are a racial minority, who have disabilities, or are mentally challenged than traditional families. With the huge problems adoptees are having finding families to begin with, this did nothing to help the situation. Furthermore, the non-discrimination law which Catholic Charities of Boston cites as the reasoning for their decision in 2006 was on the books in 1989. It was only after the Marriage Equality Act was passed that they decided to end adoption services. In fact, of the 720 adoptions facilitated by Catholic Charities of Boston from 1989 through 2006, 13 were adopted to gay couples (on purpose, too). To me, this is nothing more than four bishops making a bigoted power play.

Responses in bold.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 09:24 PM
Responses in bold.

The thing about the Catholic Charities thing is how much of a slippery slope this whole thing really is. As the "equality means religious employers paying for my abortifascients" episode shows. Although in reality the timing of that whole thing is basically a Rovean election wedge issue.

And as far as the Romney aide you're talking about, I'm not really familiar with that, but I'm sure there's more to it than they just fired a guy because he was gay.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 09:54 PM
The thing about the Catholic Charities thing is how much of a slippery slope this whole thing really is. As the "equality means religious employers paying for my abortifascients" episode shows. Although in reality the timing of that whole thing is basically a Rovean election wedge issue.

And as far as the Romney aide you're talking about, I'm not really familiar with that, but I'm sure there's more to it than they just fired a guy because he was gay.

The "more to it" is this:

Richard Grenell, openly gay former spokesman at the UN for George W. Bush, was hired to be the Romney campaign's foreign policy spokesman. Then Tony Perkins, President of the "Family Research Council", and Bryan Fischer of the "American Family Association" chime in, with Fischer writing:

Gov. Mitt Romney stepped on a landmine by appointing Richard Grenell, an out, loud and proud homosexual, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues. Grenell has for years been an outspoken advocate for homosexual marriage. In fact, word is that he left the Bush administration because President Bush would not formally acknowledge his homosexual partner.

Since, as the saying goes in D.C., personnel is policy, this means Gov. Romney has some ‘splaining to do. This clearly is a deliberate and intentional act on his part, since he was well aware of Mr. Grenell’s sexual proclivities and knew it would be problematic for social conservatives. It’s certainly not possible that there are no other potential spokesmen available, men who are experts in foreign policy and who at the same time honor the institution of natural marriage in their personal lives.

Just days after this and constant railing (and not the good kind of railing) on his radio show, Grenell resigned, stating that "my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign."

The Romney camp's response (a day after he resigned) was vanilla, non-committal "well we tried to get him to stay".

If your employer can turn on you two weeks after he hired you because of a couple right wing nutjobs who have a radio show don't like what he did, you have to ask yourself how long til the next issue or person comes along that people don't like, and he bows to that pressure as well?

The guy is an empty suit. He has no guts. He has no heart. He has no soul. He's a chiseled white businessman who is good at gutting companies and selling off the excess, leaving people jobless and raking in the cash for himself.

He is not presidential material, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 10:25 PM
The "more to it" is this:

Richard Grenell, openly gay former spokesman at the UN for George W. Bush, was hired to be the Romney campaign's foreign policy spokesman. Then Tony Perkins, President of the "Family Research Council", and Bryan Fischer of the "American Family Association" chime in, with Fischer writing:



Just days after this and constant railing (and not the good kind of railing) on his radio show, Grenell resigned, stating that "my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign."

The Romney camp's response (a day after he resigned) was vanilla, non-committal "well we tried to get him to stay".

If your employer can turn on you two weeks after he hired you because of a couple right wing nutjobs who have a radio show don't like what he did, you have to ask yourself how long til the next issue or person comes along that people don't like, and he bows to that pressure as well?

The guy is an empty suit. He has no guts. He has no heart. He has no soul. He's a chiseled white businessman who is good at gutting companies and selling off the excess, leaving people jobless and raking in the cash for himself.

He is not presidential material, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Wow, I looked this up and it looks like you swallowed the ol' party line hook line and sinker.

Grenell resigned. Maybe because of the talk in certain circles. Maybe for some other reason. But it's important to note where Grenell's resignation statement got selectively cut off above.

"While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage,my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.”

Some pretty selective quoting there. Looks like everything that doesn't mold to Obama 2012's agenda was cut out for some reason...hmmmm.

And I'm not sure why they try to paint Fischer as having any influence whatsoever on Romney. Looks like there's more bad blood than anything between the two. Fischer's opposed Romney from the beginning, since it sounds like he hates Mormons almost as much as gay people, and this was just another opportunity to take a shot.

Anyway, long story short, if you're going to play guilt by association, at least make sure there's a credible association first.

Vegas_Bronco
05-16-2012, 11:51 PM
Obama has no idea how to improve the macroeconomic conditions in this country...his inexperience smells and he tries to belittle any attempt to question this fact. As hard as he tries to make this election about the LBG...it sure as hell is not! It wont matter what rights you are entitled to if we dont get this economy back on track. We need a professional with experience not a clown trying to pass his ideas of presidential importance off on The View. Really this guy is a political failure for both parties.

Housing - D
Unemployment - F
Budget Resolution...get his azz out of school hes gone public intox

baja
05-17-2012, 12:10 AM
I'm not going to vote. Never felt this way before. Neither one is qualified to be president of the USA. They are both crooks that have no intention of serving the American people.

Something is going to have to give pretty soon.

houghtam
05-17-2012, 12:21 AM
Wow, I looked this up and it looks like you swallowed the ol' party line hook line and sinker.

Grenell resigned. Maybe because of the talk in certain circles. Maybe for some other reason. But it's important to note where Grenell's resignation statement got selectively cut off above.



Some pretty selective quoting there. Looks like everything that doesn't mold to Obama 2012's agenda was cut out for some reason...hmmmm.

And I'm not sure why they try to paint Fischer as having any influence whatsoever on Romney. Looks like there's more bad blood than anything between the two. Fischer's opposed Romney from the beginning, since it sounds like he hates Mormons almost as much as gay people, and this was just another opportunity to take a shot.

Anyway, long story short, if you're going to play guilt by association, at least make sure there's a credible association first.

It wasn't really selective quoting, so much as quoting the relevant point. Of course the guy disagreed with Obama, he was appointed to a position on his opponent's staff. Of course he says Romney says he didn't have a problem with being gay, he's the one who hired him. The point is that A) the part in the middle of the quote states that he resigned due to pressure from outside forces because he's gay, and B) the Romney camp treated it almost as if the guy had never existed. If you had seen the interview with the Romney campaign official, it was almost as if he wasn't sure what happened.

From what I understand, there's not so much bad blood between Fischer and Romney as the fact that Huckabee and Santorum are both regular guests on his show because of their conservative Christian values, and Romney, the Mormon, got the shaft.

It's also interesting to note that after the resignation, Fischer went back on his radio show and trumpeted how he "pushed around, intimidated, coerced and co-opted" Romney. Then a day later he came out with this gem:

I want to issue what amounts to sort of an apology to Gov. Romney. I was pretty hard on him on Friday and my point on Friday was his waffling when conservatives raised a concern about Richard Grenell - he went silent, he put a bag over Richard Grenell's head, let him fall on his sword, only said supportive things to Richard Grenell after he had resigned - it was an indication of the challenges that we have with Gov. Romney, that he does not seem to have a core set of principles, a core set of values by which he guides himself. And the fact that he could be so - I used the word intimidated or coerced or whatever - could be so influenced by a comparatively small number of conservatives ... and so I think it was illustrative of Gov. Romney's weaknesses and things that we've got to be concerned about.

But, at the end of the day, I didn't make enough of the fact that he did the right thing here. Now, regardless of why he did it - most likely, it was for reasons that are politically expedient - but he did the right thing. He allowed this resignation to take place, probably had some hand in bringing it about; I cannot believe that they were entirely passive in that. But here's the point: at the end of the day, Richard Grenell had stepped down, this homosexual activist, this crusader for gay marriage had stepped down and Romney could have taken a different tack. So I want to give Romney credit for doing that. Now, you'd like to know that he did it on the grounds of principle and conviction and all that - I believe that would kind of be a bridge too far - but nevertheless, Gov. Romney did the thing that he should have done.

You can play the "maybe he resigned because of the pressure from the religious right, maybe he didn't" game all you like, but the fact of the matter is that he was hired, he was criticized for being gay, and less than two weeks after he was hired, he resigned, and stated that he did so because of the backlash. All the signs point to him being forced out.

houghtam
05-17-2012, 12:22 AM
Obama has no idea how to improve the macroeconomic conditions in this country...his inexperience smells and he tries to belittle any attempt to question this fact. As hard as he tries to make this election about the LBG...it sure as hell is not! It wont matter what rights you are entitled to if we dont get this economy back on track. We need a professional with experience not a clown trying to pass his ideas of presidential importance off on The View. Really this guy is a political failure for both parties.

Housing - D
Unemployment - F
Budget Resolution...get his azz out of school hes gone public intox

So which professional with experience do you plan on voting for? Romney sure doesn't fit that description.

zo-low-mon
05-17-2012, 01:41 AM
I'm not going to vote. Never felt this way before. Neither one is qualified to be president of the USA. They are both crooks that have no intention of serving the American people.

Something is going to have to give pretty soon.

I am going to jump in before this gets lost
you don't live here

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2012, 06:42 AM
It wasn't really selective quoting, so much as quoting the relevant point. Of course the guy disagreed with Obama, he was appointed to a position on his opponent's staff. Of course he says Romney says he didn't have a problem with being gay, he's the one who hired him. The point is that A) the part in the middle of the quote states that he resigned due to pressure from outside forces because he's gay, and B) the Romney camp treated it almost as if the guy had never existed. If you had seen the interview with the Romney campaign official, it was almost as if he wasn't sure what happened.

From what I understand, there's not so much bad blood between Fischer and Romney as the fact that Huckabee and Santorum are both regular guests on his show because of their conservative Christian values, and Romney, the Mormon, got the shaft.

It's also interesting to note that after the resignation, Fischer went back on his radio show and trumpeted how he "pushed around, intimidated, coerced and co-opted" Romney. Then a day later he came out with this gem:



You can play the "maybe he resigned because of the pressure from the religious right, maybe he didn't" game all you like, but the fact of the matter is that he was hired, he was criticized for being gay, and less than two weeks after he was hired, he resigned, and stated that he did so because of the backlash. All the signs point to him being forced out.

Oh- except for him saying he wasn't forced out. And Romney saying he tried to get him to stay. Which if he wanted him gone because of a fear of backlash, he'd have a hard time saying.

So at the end of they day all you have is a bunch of Democrats and Romney opponents crowing about how they know what really happened in spite of what both parties that were a part say happened.

And of course you choose to believe the people who would never say a nice thing about Romney if you put a gun to their heads.

Kaylore
05-17-2012, 07:14 AM
GO ROMNEY!

baja
05-17-2012, 07:16 AM
I am going to jump in before this gets lost
you don't live here

So what? I am an American citizen living out of the country just like a million other Americans. Are you people that make this an issue really that naive.

TonyR
05-17-2012, 09:33 AM
In Romney’s telling, the terms debt and spending are essentially interchangeable. When presented with Obama’s position — that the solution to the debt ought to include both higher taxes and lower spending — he rejects it out of hand.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/romneys-budget-fairy-tale.html

houghtam
05-17-2012, 11:48 AM
Oh- except for him saying he wasn't forced out. And Romney saying he tried to get him to stay. Which if he wanted him gone because of a fear of backlash, he'd have a hard time saying.

So at the end of they day all you have is a bunch of Democrats and Romney opponents crowing about how they know what really happened in spite of what both parties that were a part say happened.

And of course you choose to believe the people who would never say a nice thing about Romney if you put a gun to their heads.

lol ok dude

houghtam
05-17-2012, 07:52 PM
As a nation we began by declaring "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except gays." When the Republicans get control, it will read "all men are created equal except gays, Hispanics, and blacks." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance - where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

lolcopter
05-17-2012, 08:40 PM
As a nation we began by declaring "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except gays." When the Republicans get control, it will read "all men are created equal except gays, Hispanics, and blacks." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance - where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

notsureifserious.jpg

Archer81
05-17-2012, 09:22 PM
As a nation we began by declaring "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except gays." When the Republicans get control, it will read "all men are created equal except gays, Hispanics, and blacks." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance - where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.


As opposed to the "all men are created equal"...cept the rich. Damn those job creating bastards for being fortunate enough to have more than me!

...

:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2012, 09:41 PM
As a nation we began by declaring "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except gays." When the Republicans get control, it will read "all men are created equal except gays, Hispanics, and blacks." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance - where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Ahhh. You're one of thoooose guys.

Got it. No need for further discussion.

pricejj
05-17-2012, 10:05 PM
As a nation we began by declaring "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except gays." When the Republicans get control, it will read "all men are created equal except gays, Hispanics, and blacks." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance - where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Wow, that is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read on this board...

I heard Greece is nice this time of year.

houghtam
05-17-2012, 11:35 PM
Interesting responses...

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 1855

baja
05-18-2012, 12:34 AM
Interesting responses...

Very well played. rep.

SoCalBronco
05-18-2012, 01:53 AM
The guy is an empty suit. He has no guts. He has no heart. He has no soul. He's a chiseled white businessman who is good at gutting companies and selling off the excess, leaving people jobless and raking in the cash for himself.

He is not presidential material, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

I agree that he's not Presidential material and that he's an empty suit...albeit its not because he has "no guts, no heart and no soul". That's not really a relevant criticism. It's not reasonable to expect him to stick up for that guy when the political calculus dictates that there is no electoral benefit (those that would be impressed by that wouldn't vote for him anyway) and a huge electoral detriment. That's how it works. You are living in a fantasy world to expect or hope for otherwise. He's a politically rational actor. He's not going to sink his whole campaign with his base just to prove a point or to do the right thing. That's not how rational actors operate. Romney simply can't afford to have a Sistah Souljah moment.

So while it is unfortunate for the gentleman involved, I'm not going to blame Romney for engaging in a simple rational political analysis. My problem with Romney is more that he has nothing of substance to offer. He's a garbage candidate in almost every concievable way. He's not a policy wonk with any particularly great expertise in a certain policy field (perhaps health care, although that is moot). He is totally lacking (and unprepared) in knowledge of foreign affairs (unlike Huntsman). He doesn't seem to have a great feel for legislative matters, or coalition building or doing anything that would promote getting stuff done on the Hill. He doesn't appear to have an LBJ-style skillset in that regard. He hasn't articulated any particularly new or creative policies. I do appreciate his general call for reform and consolidation of SS and Medicare and deficit reduction, but he doesn't strike me as type that has any special knowledge, experience or skill in that area (he's not Paul Ryan) and the fact that he is advocating huge tax cuts makes his call for debt reduction seem less credible. I just don't see anything special in Romney. He's just a guy with slightly more than a rudimentary knowledge of policy issues, who has been well coached and prepped and has a ton of resources at his disposal.

So I remain as I was before, someone who will not mark a box on the Presidential part of the ballot, as I can't vote for Obama, either.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 02:54 AM
I agree that he's not Presidential material and that he's an empty suit...albeit its not because he has "no guts, no heart and no soul". That's not really a relevant criticism. It's not reasonable to expect him to stick up for that guy when the political calculus dictates that there is no electoral benefit (those that would be impressed by that wouldn't vote for him anyway) and a huge electoral detriment. That's how it works. You are living in a fantasy world to expect or hope for otherwise. He's a politically rational actor. He's not going to sink his whole campaign with his base just to prove a point or to do the right thing. That's not how rational actors operate. Romney simply can't afford to have a Sistah Souljah moment.

So while it is unfortunate for the gentleman involved, I'm not going to blame Romney for engaging in a simple rational political analysis. My problem with Romney is more that he has nothing of substance to offer. He's a garbage candidate in almost every concievable way. He's not a policy wonk with any particularly great expertise in a certain policy field (perhaps health care, although that is moot). He is totally lacking (and unprepared) in knowledge of foreign affairs (unlike Huntsman). He doesn't seem to have a great feel for legislative matters, or coalition building or doing anything that would promote getting stuff done on the Hill. He doesn't appear to have an LBJ-style skillset in that regard. He hasn't articulated any particularly new or creative policies. I do appreciate his general call for reform and consolidation of SS and Medicare and deficit reduction, but he doesn't strike me as type that has any special knowledge, experience or skill in that area (he's not Paul Ryan) and the fact that he is advocating huge tax cuts makes his call for debt reduction seem less credible. I just don't see anything special in Romney. He's just a guy with slightly more than a rudimentary knowledge of policy issues, who has been well coached and prepped and has a ton of resources at his disposal.

So I remain as I was before, someone who will not mark a box on the Presidential part of the ballot, as I can't vote for Obama, either.

My statement of "no guts, no heart, no soul" I thought was fairly appropriate simply because the guy waffles on EVERYTHING. He hasn't had a consistent stance on ANYTHING since he announced his candidacy. Hell, he's supposed to be the guy running on the economy, and he hasn't even really made his stance clear on THAT yet. Yes, I understand that politicians change their tune sometimes for political gain. It goes for both parties. Yes, I understand that there is a difference between a party primary and a presidential campaign. That goes for both parties. But the guy waffles on EVERYTHING.

Look, I don't have a problem with someone who disagrees with me on most economic issues and some social issues. In fact, I had a lot of respect in McCain until he made the decision to make Palin the VP nominee. Not because I have anything against her, per se (I do, but that's besides the point), but because he wasn't smart enough to see the media **** storm and feeding frenzy that ensued as a result of announcing such a, shall we say, unpolished candidate for the second-in-command to the Leader of the Free World. I also don't mind debating people with opposing viewpoints on most issues. It's why I enjoy going back and forth with Beavis, who despite his over-the-top Tebownery (new word! ten points!), is a very intelligent and capable conversationalist, unlike his namesake.

When it comes to most social issues, however, there is very little gray area for me. Either you are for extending rights, or you are for denying rights. Either you are for affirming rights that already exist, or you are taking those rights away. To me, if you choose one, you have a chance at some semblance of an equal society, and hey, might actually get to keep a little self-dignity in the process. If you choose the other, well...enjoy your time in the Ministry of Truth. But I have some news for you. Even though you're in the party, you're not in The Party. You're a prole. You are an enabler.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 06:43 AM
Interesting responses...

Ahhh. So gay people (or family or anyone else) who aren't allowed to marry are just like slaves. Hyperbole. Check.

Cute though. I have to admit.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 06:50 AM
I'm just going to go ahead and assume with all this talk of non-principled political calc, flop-flipping, and lack of relevant experience that you're planning on a write-in vote this November. :)

TonyR
05-18-2012, 06:50 AM
Damn those job creating bastards...

Yes, they're doing a bang up jobs of creating jobs. That is clearly their first priority.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 07:47 AM
Ahhh. So gay people (or family or anyone else) who aren't allowed to marry are just like slaves. Hyperbole. Check.

Cute though. I have to admit.

Close, but I said blacks, not slaves. So did Lincoln, you know...the Republican. He also said foreigners and Catholics, but really, you can replace any one of those demographics with any of the other groups conservatives (edit: apparently I have to clarify here that I am talking about social conservatives, as opposed to fiscal conservatives, because obviously in a discussion about social issues, the first thing you'd think of is someone talking about economic issues) have traditionally sought to keep in their place. In the 19th Century it was blacks, foreigners and Catholics. It's also been Native Americans, women, Irish, Hispanics, Chinese, Jews, Germans, blacks again, women again, gays, Muslims, Hispanics again, gays again, women again.

You can call it hyperbole, but you can also find it in Chapters 1-?? of any American History textbook.

TonyR
05-18-2012, 08:06 AM
8% of North Carolina voters, including 13% of Republicans, think being gay should be a felony.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/movement-among-black-north-carolinians-on-gay-marriage.html

Requiem
05-18-2012, 08:06 AM
8% of North Carolina voters, including 13% of Republicans, think being gay should be a felony.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/movement-among-black-north-carolinians-on-gay-marriage.html

But 43% of North Carolina voters admitted to banging a sibling. :yayaya:

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 08:07 AM
Close, but I said blacks, not slaves. So did Lincoln, you know...the Republican. He also said foreigners and Catholics, but really, you can replace any one of those demographics with any of the other groups conservatives have traditionally sought to keep in their place. In the 19th Century it was blacks, foreigners and Catholics. It's also been Native Americans, women, Irish, Hispanics, Chinese, Jews, Germans, blacks again, women again, gays, Muslims, Hispanics again, gays again, women again.

You can call it hyperbole, but you can also find it in Chapters 1-?? of any American History textbook.

Problem is your history lessons are overly simplistic. You're trying your best to pigeonhole everyone into dark and light camps, when in reality that's rarely, if ever, the case.

Who was it that provided the votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act again? Which party was the party of segregation?

Dukes
05-18-2012, 08:19 AM
Yes, they're doing a bang up jobs of creating jobs. That is clearly their first priority.

Ever seen a poor person create a job?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 08:24 AM
Problem is your history lessons are overly simplistic. You're trying your best to pigeonhole everyone into dark and light camps, when in reality that's rarely, if ever, the case.

Who was it that provided the votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act again? Which party was the party of segregation?

Since you asked nicely:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Interesting. When you compare the parties' votes based on geography, that vote looks quite different, doesn't it? Looks to me like percentage-wise, the Democrats voted more for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 than their Republican counterparts.

This is why I did not say Democrats or Republicans. I said social conservatives.

So please, tell me I'm oversimplifying things. State here, for everyone to see, that social conservatives haven't been consistently been on the side of denying rights to pretty much every minority group in American history. Tell us all how these latest attempts to prevent gays from marrying, to equating wanting birth control to be covered by your health care provider to being a slut, to forcibly emigrate illegal immigrants by racially profiling and allowing police to stop ANY citizen who happens to look like they might be illegal (read: driving while brown) to ask for their papers...tell us all that these are not just another attempt by social conservatives to strip away rights from law abiding citizens who were born into the same citizenship they were.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 08:44 AM
Uh, you didn't say "social conservatives"

You said "conservatives"

You can hold out that one Republican Southern Senator as evidence of something all you want. You didn't get elected in the South if you didn't tow the segregationist line back in those days. The fact is, the segregated South was mostly an arm of the Democratic party, aided and abetted by the party at large in order to hold onto power.

But what you're really going to have a hard time explaining to me is how all those dirty Republican conservatives who opposed Medicare and all those other fun social programs in the 60's, were the key votes behind the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

alkemical
05-18-2012, 08:45 AM
As opposed to the "all men are created equal"...cept the rich. Damn those job creating bastards for being fortunate enough to have more than me!

...

:Broncos:

Does this count outsourcing?

alkemical
05-18-2012, 08:46 AM
Ever seen a poor person create a job?

Actually...yes.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 08:47 AM
Uh, you didn't say "social conservatives"

You said "conservatives"

You can hold out that one Republican Southern Senator as evidence of something all you want. You didn't get elected in the South if you didn't tow the segregationist line back in those days. The fact is, the segregated South was mostly an arm of the Democratic party, aided and abetted by the party at large in order to hold onto power.

But what you're really going to have a hard time explaining to me is how all those dirty Republican conservatives who opposed Medicare and all those other fun social programs in the 60's, were the key votes behind the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

So you're not going to say it, are you?

Didn't think so. Wonder why.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 08:52 AM
So you're not going to say it, are you?

Didn't think so. Wonder why.

Why do you switch back and forth from "conservatives" to "social conservatives" and then wonder why people don't know what you're talking about?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 08:57 AM
Why do you switch back and forth from "conservatives" to "social conservatives" and then wonder why people don't know what you're talking about?

Do you want me to go back and edit it? It was an honest mistake. I figured you were smart enough to discern that, considering we were talking about social issues, when I said "conservative" I meant "social conservative." I guess I was mistaken. Sorry, I'll go change it.

But just to clarify, are you going to go on record saying that social conservatives haven't consistently been on the side of usurping rights from people who should already have them, and denying them to those that do not yet have them? Are you also going to say that this isn't another attempt by same to do same? Or not? That's all I'm asking here.

(edit: okay, there I fixed it)

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 09:03 AM
Do you want me to go back and edit it? It was an honest mistake. I figured you were smart enough to discern that, considering we were talking about social issues, when I said "conservative" I meant "social conservative." I guess I was mistaken. Sorry, I'll go change it.

But just to clarify, are you going to go on record saying that social conservatives haven't consistently been on the side of usurping rights from people who should already have them, and denying them to those that do not yet have them? Are you also going to say that this isn't another attempt by same to do same? Or not? That's all I'm asking here.

Like the right to not have to buy abortifascients if it violates your conscience or beliefs?

Problem is your pigeonholes aren't very accommodating to those of a more libertarian persuasion.

And the difference between conservatives and social conservatives is not a trivial distinction. It changes the entire complexion of what you said.

Dukes
05-18-2012, 09:06 AM
Actually...yes.

For someone besides themselves?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 09:11 AM
Like the right to not have to buy abortifascients if it violates your conscience or beliefs?

Problem is your pigeonholes aren't very accommodating to those of a more libertarian persuasion.

And the difference between conservatives and social conservatives is not a trivial distinction. It changes the entire complexion of what you said.

Cool story (and nice deflection, btw), bro. I guess if you're not going to say it, then I'll put the words in your mouth for you.

"It's a total generalization to say that social conservatives are behind the repression of minorities throughout American history. They must have had perfectly good reasons to do it over the years, and I fully support their decision to do it this time, as well."

- BroncoBeavis

alkemical
05-18-2012, 09:14 AM
For someone besides themselves?

It took 3 years, but yes.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 09:16 AM
Interesting responses...

Let's get this straight:
1. You copy directly from a Lincoln (Republican) quote, lamenting the civil divisiveness that invariably occurs when the Know-Nothings (current Administration) gain control.
2. Yet you twist it, to implicate the political party (Republican) and the very way of thinking that eradicated slavery, as to why there is a division amongst the people today.
3. All the while, the President you voted for, starts race, class, and gender wars at every turn, just to gain votes, highlighting and preying upon people's differences, instead of attempting to bring the country together?

How very Obama-like of you.

TonyR
05-18-2012, 09:19 AM
Ever seen a poor person create a job?

I think you're missing the point. Actually, I know you're missing the point...

The wealthy are doing better than ever. Corporations are reporting robust profits. So, where are the jobs? In order to be called “job creators”, which is what the person called them in the post I responded to, shouldn’t they be creating jobs?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 09:20 AM
Let's get this straight:
1. You copy directly from a Lincoln (Republican) quote, lamenting the civil divisiveness that invariably occurs when the Know-Nothings (current Administration) gain control.
2. Yet you twist it, to implicate the political party (Republican) and the very way of thinking that eradicated slavery, as to why there is a division amongst the people today.
3. All the while, the President you voted for, starts race, class, and gender wars at every turn, just to gain votes, highlighting and preying upon people's differences, instead of attempting to bring the country together?

How very Obama-like of you.

LOL at Obama starting race wars. Stopped reading right there. Should have stopped sooner.

(edit: Let me guess, you're one of those people that think reverse racism is a bigger problem nowadays than regular racism, too?)

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 09:21 AM
then I'll put the words in your mouth for you.

Heh. Wouldn't be the first time.

No worries. I'll just sit back and enjoy your continued "progressive" effort to make sure true freedom is safely confined to the bedroom.

Because everything else belongs to the government.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 09:24 AM
I think you're missing the point. Actually, I know you're missing the point...

The wealthy are doing better than ever. Corporations are reporting robust profits. So, where are the jobs? In order to be called “job creators”, which is what the person called them in the post I responded to, shouldn’t they be creating jobs?

Well, NOW they're complaining their taxes are too high. One day, when the taxes are low, and US banks offer better terms and conditions than Swiss or Bahamian banks, and the rest of the world isn't in cahoots against the US, and we're no longer "fighting 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here", and ALL the other dominoes fall into place, then...THEN will the rich finally be able to provide those jobs they so desperately want to provide, but cannot because they are handcuffed by government.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 09:28 AM
LOL at Obama starting race wars. Stopped reading right there. Should have stopped sooner.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them,... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-Barack Obama

baja
05-18-2012, 09:28 AM
Ever seen a poor person create a job?

Without poor people the huge welfare department would not be necessary and tens of thousands welfare workers would be unemployed.

TonyR
05-18-2012, 09:32 AM
"You go into some of these small towns...

What do you disagree with here?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 09:34 AM
Without poor people the huge welfare department would not be necessary and tens of thousands welfare workers would be unemployed.

Serves them right, the communists!

houghtam
05-18-2012, 09:36 AM
What do you disagree with here?

Maybe those small towns aren't going far enough for him? ???

pricejj
05-18-2012, 09:43 AM
What do you disagree with here?

It is a divisive comment aimed at religious people. It is one thing for a U.S. President to say he is against gay marriage, then reverse his position, and suddenly say he supports gay marriage (to gain votes). It is another thing completely, when a U.S. President deliberately insults a majority of the U.S. population because they believe in god's teachings found in the torah, bible, and quran.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 09:47 AM
It is a divisive comment aimed at religious people. It is one thing for a U.S. President to say he is against gay marriage, then reverse his position, and suddenly say he supports gay marriage (to gain votes). It is another thing completely, when a U.S. President deliberately insults a majority of the U.S. population because they believe in god's teachings found in the torah, bible, and quran.

Can you tell me where in the Torah, Bible and Quran it says to be anti-immigrant?

Dukes
05-18-2012, 09:47 AM
I think you're missing the point. Actually, I know you're missing the point...

The wealthy are doing better than ever. Corporations are reporting robust profits. So, where are the jobs? In order to be called “job creators”, which is what the person called them in the post I responded to, shouldn’t they be creating jobs?

No I get your point. But what are you going to do? Mandate that anyone making over 5, 10 or 50 Million create a business and hire people? Should the government seize their assets and give the money to the poor? Is there a solution in there somewhere? All I hear is rich people suck! Ok fine, tax them at 50% or 70%. They'll just pick up and move to Monoco or the Phillipines.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 09:54 AM
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them,... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-Barack Obama

As someone who grew up in the Midwest and had family from Pennsylvania, this is a pretty adequate quote. Social conservativeness, which is by in large a product of adherence to organized religion, is one of the primary culprits of such sentiments and feelings.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 09:55 AM
They'll just pick up and move to Monoco or the Phillipines.

They have been doing that for decades now.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 09:57 AM
Can you tell me where in the Torah, Bible and Quran it says to be anti-immigrant?

That is Obama's misguided quote, not mine. He misrepresents the facts often, in order to pit one man against another. I believe the topic you were attempting to push was gay marriage, which neither the torah, bible, or quran condone.

However, we can discuss immigration if you like. Here is a question for you. Do you believe it is necessary to allow unlimited immigration to the United States? Do you think that is in the best interest of U.S. Citizens?

Requiem
05-18-2012, 09:59 AM
Can you tell me where in the Torah, Bible and Quran it says to be anti-immigrant?

I have never quite understood the anti-immigrant nature of a majority of Americans. Considering we are a country built on immigrants, I find it quite funny. Unfortunately, most people are not in tune to their roots. I have hopes for the future though. It is going to get better. It will be interesting to see when America becomes a minority-majority nation. New US Census reports show that minority births account for more than white births. Estimated timetable for minority-majority status 2042.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 10:01 AM
Do you believe it is necessary to allow unlimited immigration to the United States?

Immigration is limited (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet).

Do you think that is in the best interest of U.S. Citizens?

Considering we have limits on immigration, your question is irrelevant.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 10:03 AM
As someone who grew up in the Midwest and had family from Pennsylvania, this is a pretty adequate quote. Social conservativeness, which is by in large a product of adherence to organized religion, is one of the primary culprits of such sentiments and feelings.

In my opinion, it is not a moral defect to believe in the torah, bible, or quran. To each their own.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 10:06 AM
Considering we have limits on immigration, your question is irrelevant.

No one has a problem with limited immigration. The problem arises with the inability to support unlimited (illegal) immigration.

Is this something you dispute?

There would be no problem in these "small towns" that Obama speaks of, with limited legal immigration. Naturally, Obama distorts the facts, and attempts to demonize ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 10:08 AM
That is Obama's misguided quote, not mine. He misrepresents the facts often, in order to pit one man against another. I believe the topic you were attempting to push was gay marriage, which neither the torah, bible, or quran condone.

However, we can discuss immigration if you like. Here is a question for you. Do you believe it is necessary to allow unlimited immigration to the United States? Do you think that is in the best interest of U.S. Citizens?

If it were up to me, I'm not sure what I would do. I don't have all the facts, nor even anywhere close to the information that the president and his people have access to. What I will say, however, is that laws like the one in Arizona are a disgrace to the idea of freedom, and are, quite frankly, racist. Not because of their effect on illegal immigrants, but because they infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens, in that you can be pulled over and asked to prove you are an American simply because you look like what an immigrant might look like. People can say what they want about it de-humanizing illegals, being immoral, etc...I'm not here to argue that...what upsets me most is that American citizens can be stopped and forced to prove their citizenship for doing nothing more than driving while brown. It's the immigration policy version of the Patriot Act and those like it. You can be arrested, spied on, locked up, deported, and have all manner of civil rights violated, all for the best interests of the nation against all those evils out there. Every right not given, every right taken away is another step toward the Orwellian nightmare.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 10:09 AM
In my opinion, it is not a moral defect to believe in the torah, bible, or quran. To each their own.

And Obama didn't say it was a moral defect to adhere to a religion.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 10:11 AM
In my opinion, it is not a moral defect to believe in the torah, bible, or quran. To each their own.

It's not a moral defect to follow the teachings in those books, for the most part, IMO. I won't go into whether it's a defect to actually believe them. I am of the opinion though that this country was created with separation of church and state. Since it is perfectly possible for an individual to have a moral code without believing in the Bible, it's perfectly possible for a government to do so, as well, and should be possible for the voters who influence government to enact that moral code without enforcing their religious beliefs on others.

Perfectly possible. Not going to happen if those on the religious right have their way.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 10:16 AM
No one has a problem with limited immigration. The problem arises with the inability to support unlimited (illegal) immigration.

Is this something you dispute?

There would be no problem in these "small towns" that Obama speaks of, with limited legal immigration. Naturally, Obama distorts the facts, and attempts to demonize ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

I live in a town that has a lot of immigrants who all by in large are here legally. When I left this town 7 years ago, there were hardly any minorities in town. 96% of my town was white. Now about 80% of it is. People still hate them because I live in a state and county ruled by rednecks and hicks who have never had to interact with non-whites ever and now that they have to they are livid. They are ignorant people who have never had to deal with issues of diversity. They are not educated. They do not KNOW about other people from other walks of life. That is a fact. A majority of social conservatives and people in rural areas that are predominantly white do not like immigrants, whether they are legal or not.

And of course I support efforts to reduce illegal immigration. The methodology and implementation of policies is the issue, because immigration is inherently a complex thing.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 10:18 AM
No one has a problem with limited immigration. The problem arises with the inability to support unlimited (illegal) immigration.

Is this something you dispute?

There would be no problem in these "small towns" that Obama speaks of, with limited legal immigration. Naturally, Obama distorts the facts, and attempts to demonize ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Ummm, last I checked, the US has limited legal immigration as its policy. It simply doesn't work. Neither does self-deportation, building a fence, or completely opening the borders. If you have the perfect solution, by all means we're all ears.

In the meantime, let's not pass laws that infringe upon the rights of our own citizens just to prove a point. And if believing in the Bible or some other holy book is your thing, how about we abide by the overarching theme of those books, which is love and compassion, not love and compassion for US citizens (or whites, or Muslims, or any other group that people use religion to protect).

houghtam
05-18-2012, 10:20 AM
I live in a town that has a lot of immigrants who all by in large are here legally. When I left this town 7 years ago, there were hardly any minorities in town. 96% of my town was white. Now about 80% of it is. People still hate them because I live in a state and county ruled by rednecks and hicks who have never had to interact with non-whites ever and now that they have to they are livid. They are ignorant people who have never had to deal with issues of diversity. They are not educated. They do not KNOW about other people from other walks of life. That is a fact. A majority of social conservatives and people in rural areas that are predominantly white do not like immigrants, whether they are legal or not.

And of course I support efforts to reduce illegal immigration. The methodology and implementation of policies is the issue, because immigration is inherently a complex thing.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason that most social conservatives want to restrict the rights of minorities, particularly those minorities whose populations are booming, is because they are afraid of what will happen when the minority becomes the majority and remembers how they were treated in the past. Pretty simple, really.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 10:42 AM
I've come to the conclusion that the reason that most social conservatives want to restrict the rights of minorities, particularly those minorities whose populations are booming, is because they are afraid of what will happen when the minority becomes the majority and remembers how they were treated in the past. Pretty simple, really.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam teach civil rights, and to give in charity, and 'love thy neighbor'. Islam teaches that immigrants are so close to god, that he can hear their whisper. It is a folly to compare religion with racism.

Insulting and demonizing poor, uneducated people, no matter their race, is not beneficial to anyone. It is best to uphold the civil rights of all people. That includes protecting the civil rights of poor, uneducated American citizens who depend on the jobs and wages that are undercut by illegal immigration.

Rohirrim
05-18-2012, 10:53 AM
And Obama didn't say it was a moral defect to adhere to a religion.

Obama spent 20 years sitting in a Christian church every Sunday and the Right convinces themselves he's not a Christian. He's probably a hell of a lot more Christian than a lot of them.

Let's see, all this **** couldn't be just because he's half African American, could it? No. That couldn't be it.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 10:54 AM
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam teach civil rights, and to give in charity, and 'love thy neighbor'. Islam teaches that immigrants are so close to god, that he can hear their whisper. It is a folly to compare religion with racism.

Insulting and demonizing poor, uneducated people, no matter their race, is not beneficial to anyone. It is best to uphold the civil rights of all people. That includes protecting the civil rights of poor, uneducated American citizens who depend on the jobs and wages that are undercut by illegal immigration.

I agree with you 100%. No matter their race.

baja
05-18-2012, 10:55 AM
Obama spent 20 years sitting in a Christian church every Sunday and the Right convinces themselves he's not a Christian. He's probably a hell of a lot more Christian than a lot of them.

Let's see, all this **** couldn't be just because he's half African American, could it? No. That couldn't be it.

Is that the upper half or the lower half?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 10:58 AM
Obama spent 20 years sitting in a Christian church every Sunday and the Right convinces themselves he's not a Christian. He's probably a hell of a lot more Christian than a lot of them.

Let's see, all this **** couldn't be just because he's half African American, could it? No. That couldn't be it.

No, you've got it wrong. They think he's not an American citizen because he's half African-American. They think he's a Muslim because he's in favor of secularism. Easy distinction to miss if you're not one of the ones who believes in it.

Rohirrim
05-18-2012, 11:02 AM
No, you've got it wrong. They think he's not an American citizen because he's half African-American. They think he's a Muslim because he's in favor of secularism. Easy distinction to miss if you're not one of the ones who believes in it.

I thought that one of the major, philosophical underpinnings of our government was that it is based on secularism?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 11:07 AM
I thought that one of the major, philosophical underpinnings of our government was that it is based on secularism?

So did I. Some people would have you believe, though, that despite the fact that God is never mentioned once in the Constitution, and that despite the fact that the separation of Church and State is guaranteed as part of that Constitution, the founders really meant to make this a Christian nation because they themselves were Christians, for the most part.

You know, because it's impossible to imagine that a believing Christian could ever conceive of a government not influenced by religious beliefs.

TonyR
05-18-2012, 11:09 AM
...because they are afraid...

^ This is really it right here. Fear is among the best motivators, which is why the right uses it as the centerpiece of its propaganda. Create someone/something to be afraid of and then wildly exaggerate the threat.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 11:10 AM
Imagine a world in which diversity, civil rights, property rights, personal responsibility, and individual freedom were promoted, protected, and adhered to. :sunshine:





In contrast, imagine a world in which:
1. People were persecuted for their religion by their own President.
2. People were rewarded for not becoming productive members of society.
3. Individual responsibility for the payment of healthcare was outlawed.
2. Taxpayers were oppressed by being forced to pay for a rampantly spending out of control federal government.
3. Employers were allowed to hire illegal immigrants that would work at a wage unable to support a single person in the U.S., but can support entire families if sent back to a foreign country.
4. In order to pay for inflation in every sector of the economy, the government debased the currency, which only widens the gap between those who hold assets, and those who do not.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 11:17 AM
^ This is really it right here. Fear is among the best motivators, which is why the right uses it as the centerpiece of its propaganda. Create someone/something to be afraid of and then wildly exaggerate the threat.

How would you explain the Socialist left's promotion and expansion of the War on Terror?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 11:18 AM
Imagine a world in which diversity, civil rights, property rights, personal responsibility, and individual freedom were promoted, and adhered to. :sunshine:





In contrast, imagine a world in which:
1. People were persecuted for their religion by their own President.
2. People were rewarded for not becoming productive members of society.
3. Individual responsibility for the payment of healthcare was outlawed.
2. Taxpayers were oppressed by being forced to pay for a rampantly spending out of control federal government.
3. Employers were allowed to hire illegal immigrants that would work at a wage unable to support a single person in the U.S., but can support entire families if sent back to a foreign country.
4. In order to pay for inflation in every sector of the economy, the government debased the currency, which only widens the gap between those who hold assets, and those who do not.

Yeah, Obama is TOTALLY responsible for allowing companies to hire illegal immigrants. That practice just started in 2008.

On the other hand, imagine that:

Corporations and people earning a higher living didn't have to pay higher taxes even though they use public infrastructure, paid for by taxes, at a higher rate than those earning a lesser living.

Come on, imagine it...it can't be that hard. No, seriously.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 11:34 AM
Yeah, Obama is TOTALLY responsible for allowing companies to hire illegal immigrants. That practice just started in 2008.

Well, why did he sue Arizona for attempting to do something about the illegal immigration problem? The SCOTUS decision on the case is forthcoming (even the Democrat judges were sceptical during oral arguments). We all agree that something should be done.


On the other hand, imagine that:

Corporations and people earning a higher living didn't have to pay higher taxes even though they use public infrastructure, paid for by taxes, at a higher rate than those earning a lesser living.

Come on, imagine it...it can't be that hard. No, seriously.

1. The loopholes and asset-bubble creation mechanisms in the U.S. taxcode need to be closed. All of this could easily have been done when the Democrats held a super-majority. They failed to do so.
2. The corporate tax rate (35%) needs to be lowered in order to compete with the corporate tax rates in the rest of the world that have been dropping for the last 20 years. It is not a question of "if" the rate will be lowered, but "when".
3. High wage earners do have to pay higher taxes (35%). If raising individual tax rates is such a good idea, why didn't Obama and the Democrat super-majority raise the rates?

I am all for simplifying the tax code, to promote competition, to eliminate asset-bubbles, and reduce tax-evasive behavior. The question is, who is going to do it?

The tax-rate issue pales in comparison to the far bigger issue of over-spending. It is physically impossible to generate $3.6T in tax revenues to pay for current levels of federal government spending.

We also have to contend with the issue of state overspending and debt...which is for a different thread I suppose.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 11:37 AM
Ummm, last I checked, the US has limited legal immigration as its policy. It simply doesn't work. Neither does self-deportation, building a fence, or completely opening the borders. If you have the perfect solution, by all means we're all ears.

Huh. This law they make every effort not to enforce doesn't work. Who wouldda guessed.

"Hey, immigration is limited because we wrote limitations down on this piece of paper here. We even put signs on the border that said pretty please. What more do you want?"

houghtam
05-18-2012, 11:47 AM
Huh. This law they make every effort not to enforce doesn't work. Who wouldda guessed.

"Hey, immigration is limited because we wrote limitations down on this piece of paper here. We even put signs on the border that said pretty please. What more do you want?"

Do you really, honestly believe that anything can be done to curtail illegal immigration? Every society in human history has attempted and failed to keep people out of their country who they don't feel should be there, even the ones who built walls. All of this is over and above the original issue, which is none of the land where immigration is a major issue was ever really "our" land to begin with. Much of it, including Arizona, was "acquired" through conquest and forced purchase after the Spanish-American War.

I already said that I don't know what the answer to immigration is. I also already said that infringing on the rights of US citizens to allegedly protect against illegal aliens is not the way to do it. That's all I really have to say on the subject.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 11:55 AM
Can you tell me where in the Torah, Bible and Quran it says to be anti-immigrant?

Anti-immigrant is one thing. I'd love to hear what you think they say about open borders, however.

baja
05-18-2012, 11:58 AM
Do you really, honestly believe that anything can be done to curtail illegal immigration? Every society in human history has attempted and failed to keep people out of their country who they don't feel should be there, even the ones who built walls. All of this is over and above the original issue, which is none of the land where immigration is a major issue was ever really "our" land to begin with. Much of it, including Arizona, was "acquired" through conquest and forced purchase after the Spanish-American War.

I already said that I don't know what the answer to immigration is. I also already said that infringing on the rights of US citizens to allegedly protect against illegal aliens is not the way to do it. That's all I really have to say on the subject.

What is different today is technology. If the United States government wanted to control illegal immigration they have the means. The real reason the government doesn't curtail illegal immigration is because they do not want to.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 12:00 PM
Do you really, honestly believe that anything can be done to curtail illegal immigration? Every society in human history has attempted and failed to keep people out of their country who they don't feel should be there, even the ones who built walls. All of this is over and above the original issue, which is none of the land where immigration is a major issue was ever really "our" land to begin with. Much of it, including Arizona, was "acquired" through conquest and forced purchase after the Spanish-American War.

I already said that I don't know what the answer to immigration is. I also already said that infringing on the rights of US citizens to allegedly protect against illegal aliens is not the way to do it. That's all I really have to say on the subject.

You'll never stop it completely, no. But that's a straw argument. You do the simple things that have the most impact... universal hiring verification and stricter employer enforcement. That alone would have 10x the effect of any fence you could build.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 12:02 PM
Anti-immigrant is one thing. I'd love to hear what you think they say about open borders, however.

Post 2105, by Requiem.

"They are not educated. They do not KNOW about other people from other walks of life. That is a fact. A majority of social conservatives and people in rural areas that are predominantly white do not like immigrants, whether they are legal or not."

^ This is the truth, except I'd take it a step further and replace"immigrants" with "non-whites." To them, this isn't about the borders, and it's only tangentially about illegal vs. legal. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 12:05 PM
You'll never stop it completely, no. But that's a straw argument. You do the simple things that have the most impact... universal hiring verification and stricter employer enforcement. That alone would have 10x the effect of any fence you could build.

Gotcha. Well I'm for spending about half our military budget on the hiring verification and stricter enforcement policies you propose, then, with the provision that racist laws that infringe on civil liberties get taken off the books once and forever the day after we make that change.

Houghtam/Beavis 2016. I can see it now.

TonyR
05-18-2012, 12:08 PM
How would you explain the Socialist left's promotion and expansion of the War on Terror?

How/where is the "socialist left" doing this? And "War on Terror" was a term created by the neocons and is no longer used.

gunns
05-18-2012, 12:10 PM
How would you explain the Socialist left's promotion and expansion of the War on Terror?

Really? In what way? And were you questioning that when Bush and the Republican heavy legislature's entire platform was promotion and expansion of the War on Terror, in essence, a fear administration.

Vegas_Bronco
05-18-2012, 12:25 PM
And history repeats itself...freedom does not come w/out responsibility and self discipline. Dont let anyone ever sell you the idea that its free or due to everyone. Only those who choose the good of their country over their own desires are true stewards of the banner. All others are cursed to unhappiness and endless bickering. Food has been brought to you by the low rent of illegal immigrant workforce as athe majority...allowing you to seek more profitable activities while keeping the grocery bill low. I hate to think of the catalyst that will make this change but it is due and happening now...its in the works and the momentum needs to be stopped or slowed like nobama promised and failed to deliver.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 12:25 PM
Really? In what way? And were you questioning that when Bush and the Republican heavy legislature's entire platform was promotion and expansion of the War on Terror, in essence, a fear administration.

It's election year politics. This cycle it means that the economic meltdown was Obama's fault, Romney never said "let Detroit go bankrupt", and the War on Terror is Obama's brainchild.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 12:27 PM
And history repeats itself...freedom does not come w/out responsibility and self discipline. Dont let anyone ever sell you the idea that its free or due to everyone. Only those who choose the good of their country over their own desires are true stewards of the banner. All others are cursed to unhappiness and endless bickering. Food has been brought to you by the low rent of illegal immigrant workforce as athe majority...allowing you to seek more profitable activities while keeping the grocery bill low. I hate to think of the catalyst that will make this change but it is due and happening now...its in the works and the momentum needs to be stopped or slowed like nobama promised and failed to deliver.

notsureifserious.jpg (sorry lolcopter, had to steal)

So are you saying you're a socialist? Because in the 50s that sort of talk would get you McCarthy-ized. Oh who am I kidding? It happens nowadays, too.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 12:36 PM
It's election year politics. This cycle it means that the economic meltdown was Obama's fault, Romney never said "let Detroit go bankrupt", and the War on Terror is Obama's brainchild.

Well, Obama did increase efforts in re: AfPak big time. The GWOT wasn't his brainchild, but he is a hawk in foreign policy. But, that was as advertised in 2008. So, it isn't a surprise.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 12:44 PM
Well, Obama did increase efforts in re: AfPak big time. The GWOT wasn't his brainchild, but he is a hawk in foreign policy. But, that was as advertised in 2008. So, it isn't a surprise.

You're right, I should have appended "War on Terror" with "by going into places we have no business going for reasons we have no business having."

Drek
05-18-2012, 12:53 PM
No one has a problem with limited immigration. The problem arises with the inability to support unlimited (illegal) immigration.

Is this something you dispute?

There would be no problem in these "small towns" that Obama speaks of, with limited legal immigration. Naturally, Obama distorts the facts, and attempts to demonize ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Conservatives need to stop framing the problem with immigration as a problem with the immigrants. Then the "demonization" would stop.

If you address the REAL issue with unlimited immigration, illegal hiring practices, you fix the problem.

At the same time unlimited legal immigration would be a boon to this nation of immigrants. Not only does it bring new, driven talent to our capitalist society, it also replenishes our currently negative population growth. A huge part of the problem with social security and medicare is that our lack of national population growth is creating less payers generation after generation, with the baby boomer bubble to pass through before we can get any kind of healthy normalization to return from that.

At the same time negative population growth is a big negative for the construction industry as the need for additional housing isn't been spurred by the primary driver, more people wanting houses.

Go after employers and set up a legitimate "work your way to citizenship" program and we can let EVERY person who can find a job walk across our borders. Hell, we'd likely see companies start setting up staffing services across our southern border.

If employers faced an equal number of days in jail to the number of work days they stole from the American economy by employing illegals, along with paying fines equal to the wage differential between the illegal wages and prevailing wages we'd see a WHOLE LOT fewer businesses living off the backs of illegal immigrants.

Then all these immigrants could come over and work within the system, alongside native born Americans, and they would all pay their fair share of taxes.


1. The loopholes and asset-bubble creation mechanisms in the U.S. taxcode need to be closed. All of this could easily have been done when the Democrats held a super-majority. They failed to do so.
Because the democrats aren't a toe the line party and too many of the democratic congress and senators are bought and paid for by the same companies as the GOP. Instead of voting out someone who actually speaks to this issue (Obama) we need to vote out the congresspeople and senators who failed to do so (Pelosi, McConnell, Cantor, etc.). But those are local elections and their constituents are too blinded by political extremism to fix the issues for us.

2. The corporate tax rate (35%) needs to be lowered in order to compete with the corporate tax rates in the rest of the world that have been dropping for the last 20 years. It is not a question of "if" the rate will be lowered, but "when".[/qutoe]
Sure, but to match it the capital gains tax needs to come up. I think having both of them meet at ~25% would be a good place to be. Team that restricting what consists of "capital gains" as exclusively "capital gains" and not the various trading fees and the like that most hedge fund managers slip into the same umbrella.

[quote]3. High wage earners do have to pay higher taxes (35%). If raising individual tax rates is such a good idea, why didn't Obama and the Democrat super-majority raise the rates?
Again, not a toe the line party. Obama was talking then about needing to raise tax rates on the wealthy and extending the Bush era tax holiday for only those making <$250K. It was a campaign talking point for him in 2008. But obviously too many democrats in the congress and senate fall above that $250K line and didn't want their taxes, nor those of their political backers, to go up.

I am all for simplifying the tax code, to promote competition, to eliminate asset-bubbles, and reduce tax-evasive behavior. The question is, who is going to do it?
Well no one person can. But we do know that Barack Obama is at least one vote in favor. We also know that Mitt Romney is definitely not. He wants further reduction of taxes for the wealthiest Americans and wants further deregulation of the financial sector. Do you really think he isn't going to let them write a tax code that is every bit as convoluted as the current financial trading system?

The tax-rate issue pales in comparison to the far bigger issue of over-spending. It is physically impossible to generate $3.6T in tax revenues to pay for current levels of federal government spending.
Obviously. But at the same time many state economies are living off those federal dollars, primarily those being funneled through defense contractors. Obama has reduced non-defense discretionary spending in his time in office. Now he's pushing for an "all of the above" solution that will match increased revenue with decreased spending, but it will be a gradual plan that will require cuts across the board, including to defense.

The expression of "a good deal is one where no one walks away happy" is something that used to help guide Washington to good legislation. The president's budget is just such a piece of legislation. But the polarized party system just unilaterally voted against it. The GOP because it reduces defense spending and raises taxes on top earners. The Dems because it cuts into social reforms.

We also have to contend with the issue of state overspending and debt...which is for a different thread I suppose.
I wouldn't say so. State v. federal policy is pretty damn important.

For example, people like to paint California as a completely dysfunctional state. In a lot of ways it is. But how much better off would it be if over the last ~30 years it wasn't giving $.22 on the dollar more to the federal government than they receive? They're giving 22% of the federal taxes collected in that state to subsidize welfare states. Pretty ****ed up right?

Illinois has a ton of debt, they give 25% more to the federal government than they receive. Again, painted as a dysfunctional state but its doing more to help the union than the welfare states.

Then we have places like Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, and West Virginia who are getting between 76% to 102% more money back from the federal government than they pay in. These states are spending well outside their means and living off the federal government year after year.

So when we start talking about state overspending and how to fix that with regards to the federal budget we need to start talking about how we get the welfare states off the dole so that they stop crippling the financially viable states. After all, this is a real life version of the straw man argument the extreme right wing fringe use to depict welfare with.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 01:01 PM
Then we have places like Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, and West Virginia who are getting between 76% to 102% more money back from the federal government than they pay in. These states are spending well outside their means and living off the federal government year after year.

So when we start talking about state overspending and how to fix that with regards to the federal budget we need to start talking about how we get the welfare states off the dole so that they stop crippling the financially viable states. After all, this is a real life version of the straw man argument the extreme right wing fringe use to depict welfare with.

This times 1000.

The states whose constituents are most often against government interference are almost always the states whose constituents gladly take from that same government pot.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 01:34 PM
Really? In what way? And were you questioning that when Bush and the Republican heavy legislature's entire platform was promotion and expansion of the War on Terror, in essence, a fear administration.

I most definitely do question the bombing of innocent civilians. You cannot trivialize the Democrat party's role to approve, fund, expand, and continue the 'War on Terror' in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Obama's record is evident. The Democratic congressional voting record is clear. Therefore, the Democrat's cannot shake their responsibility. And no, I never voted for George Bush.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 01:53 PM
I most definitely do question the bombing of innocent civilians. You cannot trivialize the Democrat party's role to approve, fund, expand, and continue the 'War on Terror' in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Obama's record is evident. The Democratic congressional voting record is clear. Therefore, the Democrat's cannot shake their responsibility. And no, I never voted for George Bush.

Maybe when the president says "one war at a time", he means getting out of one war at a time, too? ???

pricejj
05-18-2012, 02:10 PM
At the same time unlimited legal immigration would be a boon to this nation of immigrants. Not only does it bring new, driven talent to our capitalist society, it also replenishes our currently negative population growth. A huge part of the problem with social security and medicare is that our lack of national population growth is creating less payers generation after generation, with the baby boomer bubble to pass through before we can get any kind of healthy normalization to return from that.

The problem with Social Security and Medicare is that the current models depend on an exponential population growth. That is unrealistic, unwanted, and unaffordable. Both programs need to be reformed.


At the same time negative population growth is a big negative for the construction industry as the need for additional housing isn't been spurred by the primary driver, more people wanting houses.

Housing starts have been hampered by the prohibitive costs associated with the currently inflated real estate market. Artificially pumping economic growth by promoting the mortgage industry and skyrocketing housing costs is the primary driver behind the debt-fueled economic collapse in 2008.


Go after employers and set up a legitimate "work your way to citizenship" program and we can let EVERY person who can find a job walk across our borders. Hell, we'd likely see companies start setting up staffing services across our southern border.

If employers faced an equal number of days in jail to the number of work days they stole from the American economy by employing illegals, along with paying fines equal to the wage differential between the illegal wages and prevailing wages we'd see a WHOLE LOT fewer businesses living off the backs of illegal immigrants.

Then all these immigrants could come over and work within the system, alongside native born Americans, and they would all pay their fair share of taxes.


Because the democrats aren't a toe the line party and too many of the democratic congress and senators are bought and paid for by the same companies as the GOP. Instead of voting out someone who actually speaks to this issue (Obama) we need to vote out the congresspeople and senators who failed to do so (Pelosi, McConnell, Cantor, etc.). But those are local elections and their constituents are too blinded by political extremism to fix the issues for us.

Unlimited legal immigration is an interesting concept. It does not seem like it would work in practice, but I will give it more thought.


Sure, but to match it the capital gains tax needs to come up. I think having both of them meet at ~25% would be a good place to be. Team that restricting what consists of "capital gains" as exclusively "capital gains" and not the various trading fees and the like that most hedge fund managers slip into the same umbrella.

It is a global race to the bottom with corporate tax rates. 25% is still probably too high, but it is a good start.


Well no one person can. But we do know that Barack Obama is at least one vote in favor. We also know that Mitt Romney is definitely not. He wants further reduction of taxes for the wealthiest Americans and wants further deregulation of the financial sector. Do you really think he isn't going to let them write a tax code that is every bit as convoluted as the current financial trading system?
I think the House Republicans (spearheaded by fiscal conservatives) could reform the tax code effectively, if given the chance. Plenty of good legislation has passed the house, in the last two years, only to die on Harry Reid's desk.



Obviously. But at the same time many state economies are living off those federal dollars, primarily those being funneled through defense contractors. Obama has reduced non-defense discretionary spending in his time in office. Now he's pushing for an "all of the above" solution that will match increased revenue with decreased spending, but it will be a gradual plan that will require cuts across the board, including to defense.

The expression of "a good deal is one where no one walks away happy" is something that used to help guide Washington to good legislation. The president's budget is just such a piece of legislation. But the polarized party system just unilaterally voted against it. The GOP because it reduces defense spending and raises taxes on top earners. The Dems because it cuts into social reforms.

The President's "budget" has not received any votes in either the Senate or House in 2 years. No Democrat's have even voted for it. Do not forget that Paul Ryan's proposed "Roadmap" calls for a cap on defense spending of 20% of tax revenues, in real terms, that would call for a $240B cut in Defense spending.


I wouldn't say so. State v. federal policy is pretty damn important.

For example, people like to paint California as a completely dysfunctional state. In a lot of ways it is. But how much better off would it be if over the last ~30 years it wasn't giving $.22 on the dollar more to the federal government than they receive? They're giving 22% of the federal taxes collected in that state to subsidize welfare states. Pretty ****ed up right?

Illinois has a ton of debt, they give 25% more to the federal government than they receive. Again, painted as a dysfunctional state but its doing more to help the union than the welfare states.

Then we have places like Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, and West Virginia who are getting between 76% to 102% more money back from the federal government than they pay in. These states are spending well outside their means and living off the federal government year after year.

So when we start talking about state overspending and how to fix that with regards to the federal budget we need to start talking about how we get the welfare states off the dole so that they stop crippling the financially viable states. After all, this is a real life version of the straw man argument the extreme right wing fringe use to depict welfare with.

I completely agree with cutting government spending across the board. That goes for the U.S. federal government, California, Alaska, New York, Florida, and any state in between. The U.S. taxpayers paid $454B in interest payments to service the U.S. federal debt in 2011 alone. California is past the point of no return, and is currently running a $17B deficit. No amount of additional taxation can come close to closing the $1.3T average annual federal deficit of the Obama administration, amounting to over $5T in new debt.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 02:22 PM
Maybe when the president says "one war at a time", he means getting out of one war at a time, too? ???

While starting 2 new ones (Libya, Yemen), expanding another (Afghanistan/Pakistan), continuing to fund others (Somalia), and instituting sanctions against 2 more (Iran, Eritrea)?

Obama's only role in Iraq was being forced to comply with Bush's original withdrawal timeline. Obama attempted to remove the withdrawal deadline, and was denied.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 02:39 PM
in real terms, that would call for a $240B cut in Defense spending.

And what is so wrong with that? Having enough firepower to blow up the world 270 times is, in business terms, cost-prohibitive. I'll settle for enough to blow it up once. Make you too queasy? Let's settle on, oh I dunno, 6 times?

Fact is we don't NEED to have higher spending on military than the next 8 countries combined. No, what it is, is congressmen and women, Republican and Democrat alike, either have constituencies which employ a lot of defense workers and all of the bureaucrats that go along with them, or are getting kickbacks and benefits from their cronies in the defense contract game, or both.

This goes back to the Carlin quote awhile back and the discussion of ownership in the United States. Not much anyone can do, because for them it's a party...and none of us are invited. Some of us realize that and some don't.

If we're fighting them over there, we're not fighting them over here. Walk softly and carry a big stick. America, love it or leave it. My Country, Right or Wrong.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 02:54 PM
Conservatives need to stop framing the problem with immigration as a problem with the immigrants. Then the "demonization" would stop.

In reality, you're the one doing the framing. Most people don't blame the immigrants. You're just setting up your own stereotypes and knocking them down for theatrics.

Obama has reduced non-defense discretionary spending in his time in office. Now he's pushing for an "all of the above" solution that will match increased revenue with decreased spending

Completely untrue start to finish. It went up almost 30% from 2008 to 2010. Not even getting into the fact that Presidents don't drive the budget. They can submit one. But seeing as how President Obama's last two attempts at that failed to receive a single vote in either the House or Senate, it's tough to see how he would've cut much of anything.

In reality the reason his budgets got zero votes is because they're all spending increases and deficits as far as the eye can see. They're more a running joke than any serious attempt at reform.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 02:54 PM
And what is so wrong with that? Having enough firepower to blow up the world 270 times is, in business terms, cost-prohibitive. I'll settle for enough to blow it up once. Make you too queasy? Let's settle on, oh I dunno, 6 times?

Fact is we don't NEED to have higher spending on military than the next 8 countries combined. No, what it is, is congressmen and women, Republican and Democrat alike, either have constituencies which employ a lot of defense workers and all of the bureaucrats that go along with them, or are getting kickbacks and benefits from their cronies in the defense contract game, or both.

This goes back to the Carlin quote awhile back and the discussion of ownership in the United States. Not much anyone can do, because for them it's a party...and none of us are invited. Some of us realize that and some don't.

There is nothing wrong with that. I think Paul Ryan's Roadmap makes a ton of sense, that's why I mentioned it. Paul Ryan and the House Republicans have a plan that would lead to greatly reduced deficits and a balanced federal budget. Nothing Obama, Reid, or Pelosi has produced in the last 3.5 years produces less than a $1T deficit. Democrat's have been clamoring to let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire (even the Democrat super-majority voted to renew the tax rates in 2009), thinking that would magically reduce the deficit. The reality is, the "Bush Tax Cuts" are tax cuts for everyone, letting them expire would plunge the nation even further into recession. Now Obama wants to just let the "tax cuts" expire for those making over $250,000 per year? What's it going to be? To generate $3.6T in tax revenue, Democrat's would need to significantly raise taxes on the middle class.

Who is he fooling? Instead of running a $1.3T deficit, then we would run a $1.1T deficit? Big whoop! Great plan!

pricejj
05-18-2012, 03:04 PM
BTW $200B would be easy to cut from Defense spending.

1. End the foreign "Wars on Terror".
2. Cut Military personnel by 10%. That would lead to a reduction from 1.5M troops, to 1.35M troops.

That's it. No big deal. That's all it would take to adhere to Paul Ryan's Roadmap, as far as Defense spending is concerned.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 03:07 PM
Stop all the ridiculous contracting and development of systems and weaponry that we do not need would help too.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 03:20 PM
BTW $200B would be easy to cut from Defense spending.

1. End the foreign "Wars on Terror".
2. Cut Military personnel by 10%. That would lead to a reduction from 1.5M troops, to 1.35M troops.

That's it. No big deal. That's all it would take to adhere to Paul Ryan's Roadmap, as far as Defense spending is concerned.

Oh I'm with you on defense spending, and in fact we could cut it by much more than that and still be able to, at the very worst, be able to assure mutual destruction if attacked. End the foreign wars on terror, as well, and like Req said, cut wasteful defense spending, and I'd definitely even make some sort of prohibitive measure to keep lawmakers with being in cahoots with defense contractors.

Problem is, you lay off military and now you add another 150,000 faces to the unemployment crowd. This is how a Republican budget plan backfires on the President. One commercial of a laid off serviceman or woman waiting in line for unemployment, and he's done. Not very sound strategy if you're the President.

People are too afraid of making a bold move in one direction or the other, and potentially sacrificing their own political careers in the process. THAT is the true reason Obama's budgets haven't gotten any votes.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 03:23 PM
Oh I'm with you on defense spending, and in fact we could cut it by much more than that and still be able to, at the very worst, be able to assure mutual destruction if attacked. End the foreign wars on terror, as well, and like Req said, cut wasteful defense spending, and I'd definitely even make some sort of prohibitive measure to keep lawmakers with being in cahoots with defense contractors.

Problem is, you lay off military and now you add another 150,000 faces to the unemployment crowd. This is how a Republican budget plan backfires on the President. One commercial of a laid off serviceman or woman waiting in line for unemployment, and he's done. Not very sound strategy if you're the President.

People are too afraid of making a bold move in one direction or the other, and potentially sacrificing their own political careers in the process. THAT is the true reason Obama's budgets haven't gotten any votes.

150,000 is no big deal...that equals about the amount of new hires in the month of April. Instead of laying them off all at once, use attrition until the federal workforce is reduced by 10% across the board. Only 1 new hire for every 3 retirees.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 04:28 PM
In other news today, Arizona Secretary of Racism-oops-I-mean-State reiterated his call for verification on Obama's long-since-released birth certificate. And threatened to keep Barack Obama, the duly elected and sitting President of the United States of America, off the ballot this November.

Vegas_Bronco
05-18-2012, 04:46 PM
This thread is getting good...love the urgency.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 04:48 PM
This thread is getting good...love the urgency.

Who are you rootin' for in November, Vegas_Bronco?

Vegas_Bronco
05-18-2012, 05:10 PM
Who are you rootin' for in November, Vegas_Bronco?

Im rooting for the states to retake their clout as the governing body...not DC. I liked huntsman from the start and have been relegated to a romney sign in the yard now. If i firmly believe one man can arrange the affairs of this great nation, it would be anyone but our current president Im sorry to say.

Vegas_Bronco
05-18-2012, 05:15 PM
In other news today, Arizona Secretary of Racism-oops-I-mean-State reiterated his call for verification on Obama's long-since-released birth certificate. And threatened to keep Barack Obama, the duly elected and sitting President of the United States of America, off the ballot this November.

Lol...Arizona is upholding the constitution against its own country? Regardless of the truth, I love them for doing this against big govt.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 05:32 PM
Lol...Arizona is upholding the constitution against its own country? Regardless of the truth, I love them for doing this against big govt.

The Obama administration is going to lose their suit against the state of Arizona...so they filed suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio last week. Who's next?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 05:40 PM
Lol...Arizona is upholding the constitution against its own country? Regardless of the truth, I love them for doing this against big govt.

Ha. This has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality, and everything to do with race. The birth certificate was released and confirmed long ago. Obama's is the only one he's requested. He's even said something to the effect of "I may end up requesting all the other candidates' birth certificates, as well, but I hope it doesn't come to that."

"Love" is probably the wrong reaction for such a heinous and reprehensible act.

Requiem
05-18-2012, 05:41 PM
Im rooting for the states to retake their clout as the governing body...not DC. I liked huntsman from the start and have been relegated to a romney sign in the yard now. If i firmly believe one man can arrange the affairs of this great nation, it would be anyone but our current president Im sorry to say.

. . . and Romney ain't that guy either. One man cannot fix a broken system.

pricejj
05-18-2012, 05:49 PM
Ha. This has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality, and everything to do with race. The birth certificate was released and confirmed long ago. Obama's is the only one he's requested. He's even said something to the effect of "I may end up requesting all the other candidates' birth certificates, as well, but I hope it doesn't come to that."

"Love" is probably the wrong reaction for such a heinous and reprehensible act.

I heard that the hospital listed on his birth certificate did not exist at the time of his birth...not sure if that is accurate or not. Hence the need for investigation. Also, Obama's SS# did not pass E-Verify.

In any case, there is no doubt that the Justice Department selling guns to Mexican Cartel's is truly "heinous and reprehensible". Wouldn't you agree?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 05:52 PM
I heard that the hospital listed on his birth certificate did not exist at the time of his birth...not sure if that is accurate or not. Hence the need for investigation. Also, Obama's SS# did not pass E-Verify.

In any case, there is no doubt that the Justice Department selling guns to Mexican Cartel's is truly "heinous and reprehensible". Wouldn't you agree?

I heard Romney's a KKK member. Better check that out.

See how easy that is?

baja
05-18-2012, 05:55 PM
Lol...Arizona is upholding the constitution against its own country? Regardless of the truth, I love them for doing this against big govt.

Me too. I only wish more states had the balls to stand up to the feds.

baja
05-18-2012, 05:59 PM
Ha. This has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality, and everything to do with race. The birth certificate was released and confirmed long ago. Obama's is the only one he's requested. He's even said something to the effect of "I may end up requesting all the other candidates' birth certificates, as well, but I hope it doesn't come to that."

"Love" is probably the wrong reaction for such a heinous and reprehensible act.

He has yet provided indisputable proof of where he was born. The document he offered as proof has many questions about it's authenticity. This could easily be squelched with indisputable documentation, something that should be readily available. Why can he not seem to do this and put this to rest once and for all.

gunns
05-18-2012, 06:07 PM
I heard that the hospital listed on his birth certificate did not exist at the time of his birth...not sure if that is accurate or not. Hence the need for investigation. Also, Obama's SS# did not pass E-Verify.

In any case, there is no doubt that the Justice Department selling guns to Mexican Cartel's is truly "heinous and reprehensible". Wouldn't you agree?

Yeah I've thought it was disgusting since it was being done during the Reagan administration

pricejj
05-18-2012, 06:13 PM
I heard Romney's a KKK member. Better check that out.

See how easy that is?

Well, I just checked. The hospital listed on the PDF of his birth certificate did, in fact, exist in 1961. Not sure what the problem is...???

houghtam
05-18-2012, 06:16 PM
He has yet provided indisputable proof of where he was born. The document he offered as proof has many questions about it's authenticity. This could easily be squelched with indisputable documentation, something that should be readily available. Why can he not seem to do this and put this to rest once and for all.

It is indisputable. The Republican governor of the state of Hawaii and several prominent members of the GOP have commiserated such. It's a scare tactic perpetuated by people who are looking to undermine his legitimacy. Any "further proof" he could provide woukd quickly be dispatched as yet another forgery by the right wing spin machine, and you know it. Not only is it a scare tactic, it's a racist scare tactic. No other candidates' citizenship is being questioned.

baja
05-18-2012, 06:21 PM
It is indisputable. The Republican governor of the state of Hawaii and several prominent members of the GOP have commiserated such. It's a scare tactic perpetuated by people who are looking to undermine his legitimacy. Any "further proof" he could provide woukd quickly be dispatched as yet another forgery by the right wing spin machine, and you know it. Not only is it a scare tactic, it's a racist scare tactic. No other candidates' citizenship is being questioned.

One thing about having a half black president is you can always deflect by claiming racism. Works every time in our political correct plagued society

pricejj
05-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Yeah I've thought it was disgusting since it was being done during the Reagan administration

Ah, the Iran-Contra Scandal. The selling of weapons to Iran in order to free American hostages from Hezbollah, and funding Honduran rebels to topple the Nicaraguan government. Legislation passed in 1984, made such activities illegal. Both Oliver North and John Poindexter were brought to trial and convicted, if you recall.

Selling guns to Mexican Cartels in hopes that they would be used on American soil to stir up anti-gun sentiment, is quite a different matter, and is also illegal. Have their been any convictions?

houghtam
05-18-2012, 06:26 PM
One thing about having a half black president is you can always deflect by claiming racism. Works every time in our political correct plagued society

Yeah, because the worst thing going for asking for the birth certificate of a sitting president for the first time in history when he also happens to BE the first black president in history is that it's "politically incorrect."

baja
05-18-2012, 06:29 PM
Yeah, because the worst thing going for asking for the birth certificate of a sitting president for the first time in history when he also happens to BE the first black president in history is that it's "politically incorrect."

If the document was "indisputable" as you claim than it could not be disputed. It IS disputed because the ss card and the BC do not stand up to scientific testing.

I will give you there is racial bias involved with some of the doubters but the fact remains the documents do not pass the smell test.

baja
05-18-2012, 06:40 PM
And on the lighter side;

http://www.wimp.com/dancingjive/

houghtam
05-18-2012, 06:41 PM
If the document was "indisputable" as you claim than it could not be disputed. It IS disputed because the ss card and the BC do not stand up to scientific testing.

I will give you there is racial bias involved with some of the doubters but the fact remains the documents do not pass the smell test.

Sorry, but you're clueless. There is a birth notice in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from 8/13/61 and 8/14/61 respectively. The state Health Director and State Registrar verified it. What more of a "smell test" does it need to pass before racial bias outweighs legitimate concern?

baja
05-18-2012, 06:47 PM
Sorry, but you're clueless. There is a birth notice in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from 8/13/61 and 8/14/61 respectively. The state Health Director and State Registrar verified it. What more of a "smell test" does it need to pass before racial bias outweighs legitimate concern?

The actual documents appear to have been tampered with. What people say is not proof.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 06:53 PM
The actual documents appear to have been tampered with. What people say is not proof.

If you support states rights, you're dead wrong that what the Health Director and State Registrar say don't hold up. Otherwise anytime the federal government wanted to, they could effectively void any state-issued document they wanted by calling into question its authenticity. Dangerous precedent to set. The officials in Hawaii, appointed by officials elected by the people of Hawaii, examined the documents. They verified them. End of story.

Keep banging that drum, though. The only thing that it accomplishes is further dividing the country and making you and the rest of the birthers look like tools.

baja
05-18-2012, 06:59 PM
If you support states rights, you're dead wrong that what the Health Director and State Registrar say don't hold up. Otherwise anytime the federal government wanted to, they could effectively void any state-issued document they wanted by calling into question its authenticity. Dangerous precedent to set. The officials in Hawaii, appointed by officials elected by the people of Hawaii, examined the documents. They verified them. End of story.

Keep banging that drum, though. The only thing that it accomplishes is further dividing the country and making you and the rest of the birthers look like tools.

Actually I am not a birther. Just a person that would like to see the issue cleared up and according to many qualified document analysts it is not.

houghtam
05-18-2012, 07:04 PM
Actually I am not a birther. Just a person that would like to see the issue cleared up and according to many qualified document analysts it is not.

I notice your claims are very vague, with no real substance or documentation.

Anyway, I'm sure the "qualified document analysts" are non-partisan, and that the hospital that sent out the birth announcement and the not one but two newspapers that printed it are all in cahoots, as well.

Wait a minute...I know who did it.

Archer81
05-18-2012, 07:08 PM
Birthers and 9/11 "truthers".

Special breed of people.

:Broncos:

houghtam
05-18-2012, 07:13 PM
Birthers and 9/11 "truthers".

Special breed of people.

:Broncos:

Illuminati, Opus Dei, leprechauns, black magic, eskimos...

Archer81
05-18-2012, 07:15 PM
Illuminati, Opus Dei, leprechauns, black magic, eskimos...


White magic, crystal skulls, anti-grav, monkeys.

List goes on and on.

:Broncos:

baja
05-18-2012, 07:35 PM
I notice your claims are very vague, with no real substance or documentation.

Anyway, I'm sure the "qualified document analysts" are non-partisan, and that the hospital that sent out the birth announcement and the not one but two newspapers that printed it are all in cahoots, as well.

Wait a minute...I know who did it.

That is a fair observation. The reason I stay away form the details is because it starts an avenue of argument neither of us will win because we are talking reasonable doubt. I have it, you don't and that ain't changing.

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2012, 09:23 PM
People are too afraid of making a bold move in one direction or the other, and potentially sacrificing their own political careers in the process. THAT is the true reason Obama's budgets haven't gotten any votes.

Hilarious!

Requiem
05-18-2012, 09:33 PM
The vetting process for the Presidency is intense. He wouldn't have made it through that had he not been an official citizen. Unless you are a conspiracy nut, you would just understand that it is what it is. He is good to go!

Drek
05-19-2012, 04:13 AM
The problem with Social Security and Medicare is that the current models depend on an exponential population growth. That is unrealistic, unwanted, and unaffordable. Both programs need to be reformed.
Obviously, but that reform will be far less painful on the citizens who this nation made a promise to, took money from, and now depend on those services.

People might not like to hear it, but retirees benefiting from social security and medicare paid for a promised service. They deserve to see the returns. Just because Reagan raided the war chest to simultaneously slash taxes and fund authoritarian regimes to "win" the Cold War (regimes we've since had to clean up at rather massive cost) doesn't mean we can break that promise.

Reform the programs but also increase the funding coming into them. Meet in the middle and set a long term path that takes the funds collected for both services out of the reach of congress, the senate, and the POTUS.



Housing starts have been hampered by the prohibitive costs associated with the currently inflated real estate market. Artificially pumping economic growth by promoting the mortgage industry and skyrocketing housing costs is the primary driver behind the debt-fueled economic collapse in 2008.
They're pretty balanced out right now. Ask most any economist who focuses on the housing market. The bubble was in part a product of presumptive demand. The negative population growth of the U.S. over the last generation or two is the biggest game changer the housing market couldn't wrap it's head around. We're heading to a point where there are more houses than home buyers. It doesn't matter what mortgage policy looks like nationwide if there are more sellers than buyers, that's a bad market.

When I bought a house the home inspector commented to me that home sales and home building really are the driver of this economy. I didn't fully understand what he said until about a month after close I'd hired him, a sewer inspector, had the buyer hire a plumber to fix some sewer issues, a lead inspector, a locksmith, a tuckpointer, a roofer, an alarm installer, and all that on top of my realtor, mortgage broker, insurance broker, and the ample amount of money I spent at hardware and furniture stores.

Housing is the backbone of the small business economy. It is the one sector where big box/global corporations haven't found a way to take control effectively. Almost anyone you hire in the process will be a local or at best small national company. Those people bush for their own growth and create more jobs to meet additional demand. This is why we need more home buyers than sellers, to spur these regional micro-economies across the nation and also to force home construction to kick back in gear.



Unlimited legal immigration is an interesting concept. It does not seem like it would work in practice, but I will give it more thought.
It's been done before. You're living in the product of it. For much of the U.S.'s history there was no limit other than getting your ass across the pond to become a resident, and the hurdle for full citizenship wasn't much higher. The end result was the single biggest, fastest, most stable economic boom any country has every experienced.

unhindered legal immigration is the greatest of capitalist ideas. It says we as a people will take on all challengers and prove our worth against them. That has been the modus operandi of the United States for much of it's life. Putting up artificial barriers to restrict who can challenge us leads to nothing but stagnation and decay.


It is a global race to the bottom with corporate tax rates. 25% is still probably too high, but it is a good start.
I would argue that it's a global race to the best combination of tax rates and services.

With the U.S. rate being so high why haven't more companies fled overseas? Why instead do they maintain themselves as U.S. companies while outsourcing labor to these other lower tax burden nations when they could completely move and likely pay far less in taxes?

Because the infrastructure of the U.S., the talent pool offered in the U.S., the stability of the U.S., and the backing of the U.S. government is worth every penny they currently pay. No other nation even comes particularly close in servicing their private sector like we do. They aren't leaving for quite some time. The only thing lowering their taxes does is help fuel their further economic prosperity, which you hope trickles down to the U.S. people.

Which is why the best plan for corporations is to set the tax rate at 25%, match it with capital gains taxes so there is no distinction from a corporate standpoint between the two, then remove all other tax dodges and subsidies. Replace them with massive subsidies for employing U.S. workers and developing emerging technologies.

A few examples:
Establish a tax deduction for companies for every employee over 60% over the U.S., with a 0.5% deduction per 1% of employees in the U.S.. That means for a fully U.S. staffed company we've already moved their tax rate to 5%.

Establish a dollar for dollar tax deduction on any green technology implementation. Not just R&D but the real implementation, and not a special circumstances thing. If you do that I bet within five years you see coal plants fitted with full range scrubbers (sulfuric, CO, CO2, etc.) and coal mines in Ohio, Illinois, etc. opening back up. The coal agenda is a straw man of the worst kind right now. The reason so much of our coal is untapped is because of George W. Bush's clean air act to help prevent acid rain from burning high sulfur coal. You can resolve that and potential green house gas issues at the same time with any of the contemporary scrubbing systems available for increasingly reasonable cost. Those costs get far more reasonable if you let companies write off every penny of that along with the restart-up costs on midwestern coal mining.

That is how you generate a competitive ecosystem for corporations that at the same time fosters U.S. job growth.


I think the House Republicans (spearheaded by fiscal conservatives) could reform the tax code effectively, if given the chance. Plenty of good legislation has passed the house, in the last two years, only to die on Harry Reid's desk.
You mean the same people who are now trying to pass the defense cuts from their debt ceiling suicide pact onto entitlements? The house republicans are insistent that the budget gap be made up of nothing but cuts, with almost no cuts from defense, and ideally want it coupled with keeping the Bush tax holiday in effect for everyone, including the extremely wealthy. That is all non-starters and are examples of massive fiscal irresponsibility.

The President's "budget" has not received any votes in either the Senate or House in 2 years. No Democrat's have even voted for it. Do not forget that Paul Ryan's proposed "Roadmap" calls for a cap on defense spending of 20% of tax revenues, in real terms, that would call for a $240B cut in Defense spending.
The POTUS' budget is a realigned plan not dissimilar from Simpson-Boules. The consessions it asks for from both parties is what has kept anyone from voting for it. They extreme left an extreme right refuse to accept a true "meet in the middle" budget and that is the problem here.

Ryan's plan pushes almost all of the debt reduction burden onto social programs. His defense spending cut backs are a drop in the bucket compared to what he wants done to social security, medicare, and other programs that keep this nation's already wide economic gap from turning into a gamble with poverty for nearly all Americans if they take any sort of risk. That is anti-capitalist.

Until Ryan acknowledges that you need to increase revenues to soften the blow of cuts, and that we need to keep domestic spending up as best as possible to further soften that blow, his plan will be nothing more than a wet dream for the wealthy.

I completely agree with cutting government spending across the board. That goes for the U.S. federal government, California, Alaska, New York, Florida, and any state in between. The U.S. taxpayers paid $454B in interest payments to service the U.S. federal debt in 2011 alone. California is past the point of no return, and is currently running a $17B deficit. No amount of additional taxation can come close to closing the $1.3T average annual federal deficit of the Obama administration, amounting to over $5T in new debt.
California gives hundreds of millions, possibly even into the billions, more a year to the federal government than they receive. If they could freeze spending they'd likely close the budget shortfall and begin paying down their debt quickly.

And of course we can't solve the budget shortfall simply through increased revenues. Obama has never suggested that. He has pushed for an "all of the above" method that would reduce expenses while increasing revenues to soften the blow.

This is the attitude all politicians should support. Both sides give and in 10-15 years when the budget is balanced and the deficit is reduced to a manageable level we can then argue how we spend the excess revenue, on further tax cuts or on expanded social programs. But you can't have either until we fix the current red ink at the end of every government ledger.


In reality, you're the one doing the framing. Most people don't blame the immigrants. You're just setting up your own stereotypes and knocking them down for theatrics.
I'm the one setting up stereotypes while the GOP is the party that supports:
1. forced proof of citizenship if a cop suspects you might be an illegal immigrant.
2. self-deportation (there's a winner).
3. constantly rails on the need for greater border security.
4. constantly rails on the need for greater deportation.

The GOP's entire immigration platform centers around the immigrants themselves. So how exactly aren't they blaming the immigrants themselves?

But no one is willing to crack down on employers. Instead employers get away with a shrug and a smirk when they get raided and dozens of illegals are drug out of their place of business to be exported.

Vegas_Bronco
05-19-2012, 11:59 AM
It is indisputable. The Republican governor of the state of Hawaii and several prominent members of the GOP have commiserated such. It's a scare tactic perpetuated by people who are looking to undermine his legitimacy. Any "further proof" he could provide woukd quickly be dispatched as yet another forgery by the right wing spin machine, and you know it. Not only is it a scare tactic, it's a racist scare tactic. No other candidates' citizenship is being questioned.

Right....lol. Scaring us!?! His own movements have scared the country...he's not only been the left wing spin machine on his stance on gay marriage, but also his budget, medicare/medicaid, and SS benefits and has failed to do what he promised for change...

Has not created a foreclosure prevention fund. Has not given tax credits to employees working wage restricted positions, has not repealed Bush tax credits, has not closed Guatanamo Bay, has not restricted warrantless wire taps, does nothing to encourage a required waiting period and disclosure for earmarks, has not established tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials...instead he's invested public tax dollars into strenghtening this disgusting mess that continues to deflate our country, and last but not least has not created 5.0 million new jobs - hell who cares if they're green jobs or not...just create the damn jobs!

Lets see...who's been spinning who? He tries hard in all the wrong areas and if he's bold enough throw this extremely selfish agenda around in the first 4...I hate to think there is more in the bag for 4 more years.

Vegas_Bronco
05-19-2012, 12:13 PM
If you support states rights, you're dead wrong that what the Health Director and State Registrar say don't hold up. Otherwise anytime the federal government wanted to, they could effectively void any state-issued document they wanted by calling into question its authenticity. Dangerous precedent to set. The officials in Hawaii, appointed by officials elected by the people of Hawaii, examined the documents. They verified them. End of story.

Keep banging that drum, though. The only thing that it accomplishes is further dividing the country and making you and the rest of the birthers look like tools.

lol - the first paragraph is golden...the Feds void state issued documents all the time by trumping their agendas...threatening to decrease/hold back funding...or just ignore it as monkey shi zz. Arizona has every right to do what they are doing and as long as that is legal, they should persue it to the fullest. It's not the topic that matters here, but the principle at hand... and lately the feds have been trying to stomp out Arizona's legal rights as a state to create legislation for the benefit/desires of their residents. I don't agree with many states and therefore choose not to live in those states...that is what makes this country great.

peacepipe
05-19-2012, 12:17 PM
lol - the first paragraph is golden...the Feds void state issued documents all the time by trumping their agendas...threatening to decrease/hold back funding...or just ignore it as monkey shi zz. Arizona has every right to do what they are doing and as long as that is legal, they should persue it to the fullest. It's not the topic that matters here, but the principle at hand... and lately the feds have been trying to stomp out Arizona's legal rights as a state to create legislation for the benefit/desires of their residents. I don't agree with many states and therefore choose not to live in those states...that is what makes this country great.

such as....

houghtam
05-19-2012, 02:10 PM
Right....lol. Scaring us!?! His own movements have scared the country...he's not only been the left wing spin machine on his stance on gay marriage, but also his budget, medicare/medicaid, and SS benefits and has failed to do what he promised for change...

Has not created a foreclosure prevention fund. Has not given tax credits to employees working wage restricted positions, has not repealed Bush tax credits, has not closed Guatanamo Bay, has not restricted warrantless wire taps, does nothing to encourage a required waiting period and disclosure for earmarks, has not established tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials...instead he's invested public tax dollars into strenghtening this disgusting mess that continues to deflate our country, and last but not least has not created 5.0 million new jobs - hell who cares if they're green jobs or not...just create the damn jobs!

Lets see...who's been spinning who? He tries hard in all the wrong areas and if he's bold enough throw this extremely selfish agenda around in the first 4...I hate to think there is more in the bag for 4 more years.

And in this entire post, there is not a shred of support for the reasoning behind perpetuating the myth that Obama is not a citizen.

Why quote a post if you're not going to address what was said in the post?

Or do you just like to hear yourself talk? Usually happens when people spout off who have no clue wtf they're talking about.

Nope. Begone. :wave:

houghtam
05-19-2012, 02:15 PM
lol - the first paragraph is golden...the Feds void state issued documents all the time by trumping their agendas...threatening to decrease/hold back funding...or just ignore it as monkey shi zz. Arizona has every right to do what they are doing and as long as that is legal, they should persue it to the fullest. It's not the topic that matters here, but the principle at hand... and lately the feds have been trying to stomp out Arizona's legal rights as a state to create legislation for the benefit/desires of their residents. I don't agree with many states and therefore choose not to live in those states...that is what makes this country great.

Not sure the constitutionality of refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the legally elected President of the United States. I'm sure that will come out in the wash.

Seems to me we fought a war about that, oh, about 150 years ago, though.

baja
05-19-2012, 02:34 PM
Not sure the constitutionality of refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the legally elected President of the United States. I'm sure that will come out in the wash.

Seems to me we fought a war about that, oh, about 150 years ago, though.

I have always wondered why seemingly intelligent posters frequently use the "Because we did it before" argument.

houghtam
05-19-2012, 03:00 PM
I have always wondered why seemingly intelligent posters frequently use the "Because we did it before" argument.

Because it sets a precedent?

Think about it. South Carolina's secession from the Union in 1861 was a direct result of Lincoln's election. And essentially what secession means is that you are refusing to be governed by the elected federal government. It will be interesting to see if Arizona is even able to follow through with this, affecting a federal election, without the federal government stepping in. To my knowledge, this sort of thing is unprecedented, where a sitting president was denied placement on the ballot, and definitely not in recent electoral history. And, like I said, it doesn't have any real substance. It's an underhanded tactic designed to swing a battleground state into the Republican column, nothing more.

My guess though, is that Bennett will back down anyway, and Arizona won't need to be slapped back into line by the feds.

Vegas_Bronco
05-19-2012, 07:58 PM
such as....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
Note: i do not necssarily agree with az legislation...but they have every right to enforce their own state statutes.

houghtam
05-19-2012, 08:10 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
Note: i do not necssarily agree with az legislation...but they have every right to enforce their own state statutes.

Not if it is in violation of federal law. This is what is known as the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

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

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Federal judges are also allowed to issue injunctions against proposed state laws if it is deemed that those laws may conflict with federal law.

States rights are states rights, right up until they conflict with federal law. And yes, baja, this is exactly why the Civil War was fought.

Vegas_Bronco
05-19-2012, 08:26 PM
Not sure the constitutionality of refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the legally elected President of the United States. I'm sure that will come out in the wash.

Seems to me we fought a war about that, oh, about 150 years ago, though.

Once the Confederates knew they had been beat they kept fighting out of principle and honor to their cause. In fact they marched into their own deaths to die along with the principles and ideas they believed in. There was no reason for them to die if you view this from a modern perspective...but for those men it meant everything.

Let Arizona be Arizona and allow them to question what they will regardless of the man or his title...the day i am disallowed to question the authority or qualifications of my elected officials and be labeled a racist for doing such is a blasphem of all the blood that has been spilt protecting our rights as citizen...even that of the confederates who gave their lives as an example of this same right...even to guard this principle themselves.

Vegas_Bronco
05-19-2012, 08:37 PM
Not if it is in violation of federal law. This is what is known as the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

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



Federal judges are also allowed to issue injunctions against proposed state laws if it is deemed that those laws may conflict with federal law.

States rights are states rights, right up until they conflict with federal law. And yes, baja, this is exactly why the Civil War was fought.

You are confusing the law with the right to enforce the law. The judge did nothing but carry out a favor for big brother...the law is a federal law in place and arizona was seeking to enforce the legislation.

houghtam
05-19-2012, 08:44 PM
Once the Confederates knew they had been beat they kept fighting out of principle and honor to their cause. In fact they marched into their own deaths to die along with the principles and ideas they believed in. There was no reason for them to die if you view this from a modern perspective...but for those men it meant everything.

Let Arizona be Arizona and allow them to question what they will regardless of the man or his title...the day i am disallowed to question the authority or qualifications of my elected officials and be labeled a racist for doing such is a blasphem of all the blood that has been spilt protecting our rights as citizen...even that of the confederates who gave their lives to guard this principle themselves.

You can question the government all you like, as long as it is done within the confines of federal law. Otherwise, you're likely to get locked up.

Hawaii provided its verified birth records for Obama. Eventually, if Bennett doesn't back off, the federal government will step in and exercise the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution.

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

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.

Basically, this Clause indicates that states are required to "respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." It is why you can get pulled over in Tennessee with a Florida driver's license. Tennessee cannot legally say "we no longer accept Florida driver's licenses."

Vegas_Bronco
05-19-2012, 08:46 PM
. . . and Romney ain't that guy either. One man cannot fix a broken system.

No one man cannot, but he can encourage the hope for reform to his citizens...pushing congress to act. Congressional changes of late demonstrate that thethe system is not broken, but may need some overdue cleaning and detailing. This has me hopeful.

ZONA
05-19-2012, 10:37 PM
LOL, look at Bush Sr and Junior on this chart. They as many years with jobs lost as they did jobs gained.........OUCH. Also, just a quick reminder looking at what Obama had to take over. Look how far down that went for Bush Jr his final year. I'm not gonna trash Republican presidents but it has not been their party's best showing the last 2 of presidents from that party.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/private-sector-job-creation-by-president-political-party.jpg

Cito Pelon
05-19-2012, 11:07 PM
And in this entire post, there is not a shred of support for the reasoning behind perpetuating the myth that Obama is not a citizen.

Why quote a post if you're not going to address what was said in the post?

Or do you just like to hear yourself talk? Usually happens when people spout off who have no clue wtf they're talking about.

Nope. Begone. :wave:

There is actually still political capital to be made supporting that myth.

Ridiculous as it is, even after Obama called out Donald Trump as "nothing more than a carnival barker" and ended Trump's run at the Presidency.

That was a fitting end to Trump, forever to be known as the carnival barker that spent $20 million to fall on his face.

Vegas_Bronco
05-20-2012, 08:10 AM
You can question the government all you like, as long as it is done within the confines of federal law. Otherwise, you're likely to get locked up.

Hawaii provided its verified birth records for Obama. Eventually, if Bennett doesn't back off, the federal government will step in and exercise the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution.

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



Basically, this Clause indicates that states are required to "respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." It is why you can get pulled over in Tennessee with a Florida driver's license. Tennessee cannot legally say "we no longer accept Florida driver's licenses."

Regrettably, once he becomes a presidential candidate as an electedall official, his whole life is fair game..w/out the 2 week vacation. But the argument is about the validity of the document...if hawaii confirms and arizona denies the legality of the document, what then? I could care less about whether the certificate is legal or not but any state that wants to review the validity has every right to do so. I dont care if its an application as a car salesman. What the sherrif did is legal and Obama has every right ti sue him....another insight into the true worth if this man holding our nations title as pres of us.

houghtam
05-20-2012, 08:30 AM
Regrettably, once he becomes a presidential candidate as an electedall official, his whole life is fair game..w/out the 2 week vacation. But the argument is about the validity of the document...if hawaii confirms and arizona denies the legality of the document, what then? I could care less about whether the certificate is legal or not but any state that wants to review the validity has every right to do so. I dont care if its an application as a car salesman. What the sherrif did is legal and Obama has every right ti sue him....another insight into the true worth if this man holding our nations title as pres of us.

That's the thing. If Hawaii confirms it, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, legally there is no "what then." It's the end of the story. It's not the Partial Faith and Credit Clause. Arizona has no right to question the validity of a document distributed and verified by Hawaii. All they can legally do is ask whether it's an official document, which they have, and all Hawaii needs to say is yes, which they have.

This is one of the big issues in the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in 1996. Basically, DOMA is a law passed saying that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply, and that same sex marriages performed in other states are not required to be honored by states that do not. It is the exception, not the rule.

If the Republicans want to try passing a federal law saying that no state is required to acknowledge the birth certificates issued in other states, they are more than welcome to try, but their state laws have no jurisdiction over a federal election. None.

As Cito Pelon put it, all this is, is an attempt to keep the Obama birth certificate in question for the very small portion of people for whom it is still an issue, like yourself. My guess (and this would be my play as well, if I were the Obama camp), is that the Dems will keep this story in the media as long as they need to until they can no longer gain political capital from how stupid Bennett and the state look. And then they'll saunter in when the time is right with a big fat injunction that tells them to get their ass in line or have it forced there.