http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8514961/Mike-Huckabee-rules-himself-out-of-presidential-race.html
QuoteMike Huckabee rules himself out of presidential race
Mike Huckabee, a potential front-runner in 2012 Republican primary campaign, has ruled himself out of the race, declaring that he would stick with his lucrative career as a broadcaster and paid speaker.
The former Arkansas governor came second to Senator John McCain in the 2008 primary, and was expected to make another strong showing based on his popularity among Christian conservatives.
But an intense period of speculation, Mr Huckabee announced his decision on his Fox Television show, the centrepiece of the enterprises he has developed since shooting to national prominence three years ago.
"All the factors say go, but my heart says no," he said.
Had he chosen to run, Mr Huckabee would have been forced to give up all outside earnings. Apart from the Fox show, he hosts a nationally syndicated radio programme, gives paid speeches around the country and has launched a series of animated videos for children on American history.
The one-time Baptist preacher has made no secret of enjoying unprecedented wealth, which he has used in part to build a £2 million beachfront home in Florida. He had also at times expressed dread at the numerous debates and fund-raising events that presidential candidates have to attend.
His withdrawal underlined that underlined that for all of President Barack Obama's vulnerabilities on the economy, taking on his re-election machine and potential £650 million treasure chest remains a daunting task.
His decision will leave a gap in the race for social conservative candidates such as Representative Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor.
Hopefully this will open the door for one of the crazies to get the GOP nomination.
Huckabee was one of the crazies.
Quote"All the factors say go, but my heart says no," he said.
He is ripping off Christina Aguilera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIDWgqDBNXA
Quote from: Habbaku on May 15, 2011, 11:49:44 AM
Huckabee was one of the crazies.
He ran on abolishing the income tax. :yes:
Oh good he was the only true douchebag who had a chance of winning. I hope he enjoys his bag of silver he sold the Christian Conservatives for. :yeah:
Boo hoo. One less guy Mitt Romney can finish behind.
Hallelujah, now all the Christian crazies can go for Santorum.
....
OH SHI-
One snake-oil salesman down, thousands to go. No preacher should ever be in politics.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2011, 12:18:30 PM
Oh good he was the only true douchebag who had a chance of winning. I hope he enjoys his bag of silver he sold the Christian Conservatives for. :yeah:
The fact that he was willing to do that just proves that he was one of us. Is there any virtue that Western society prizes above unbridled selfishness?
The fact that he paid for his beach house in pounds should be enough to disqualify him.
Is en gard.
Romney's virtually a lock now I think.
Lock for what?
Lock for 5th place.
And why the fuck are we even letting Timmay post about this shit? He doesn't even fucking live here anymore. He's about as relevant as Neil.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:02:39 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 15, 2011, 07:55:07 PM
Lock for what?
The nomination.
Is this all the GOP has? Mitt Romney?
Gingrich is running, so is Pawlenty. Mitch Daniels doesn't seem to be. The rest have no shot.
:cheers:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:09:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:02:39 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 15, 2011, 07:55:07 PM
Lock for what?
The nomination.
Is this all the GOP has? Mitt Romney?
Gingrich is running, so is Pawlenty. Mitch Daniels doesn't seem to be. The rest have no shot.
If I was Obama, I would be laughing my ass off. None of those cats will put a dent in the Obamanation.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:19:52 PMIf I was Obama, I would be laughing my ass off. None of those cats will put a dent in the Obamanation.
Throw in another filled Hopey-Changey-You-Betcha-Wink-Wink Palin-filled election cycle along with that stunningly insane and uneducated Michelle Bachmann, and I see the election coming down to the wire.
You know who makes such announcements that someone is a lock 11-12 months before convention?
A fucking idiot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:19:52 PMIf I was Obama, I would be laughing my ass off. None of those cats will put a dent in the Obamanation.
Throw in another filled Hopey-Changey-You-Betcha-Wink-Wink Palin-filled election cycle along with that stunningly insane and uneducated Michelle Bachmann, and I see the election coming down to the wire.
Palin, I wonder what that shrill cunt is up to?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
Palin, I wonder what that shrill cunt is up to?
Working towards the nomination. The subhuman intelligence of teabagging Republitard primary voters cannot be underestimated enough. She's EVEN on the Sheridan Line so far.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:19:52 PMIf I was Obama, I would be laughing my ass off. None of those cats will put a dent in the Obamanation.
Throw in another filled Hopey-Changey-You-Betcha-Wink-Wink Palin-filled election cycle along with that stunningly insane and uneducated Michelle Bachmann, and I see the election coming down to the wire.
Palin, I wonder what that shrill cunt is up to?
Hopefully sitting on my cock.
I don't think she will be running, or won't be in it for long.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2011, 08:48:02 PMHopefully sitting on my cock.
With a ball gag.
On her, not your cock.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:09:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:02:39 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 15, 2011, 07:55:07 PM
Lock for what?
The nomination.
Is this all the GOP has? Mitt Romney?
Gingrich is running, so is Pawlenty. Mitch Daniels doesn't seem to be. The rest have no shot.
I'm going to quote this so that when the nominee is neither of those, you'll look like a dumbass.
11b,
Oh is he ever. I told him they were coming up to Alaska and he squeed!
I did more than squeed, I mewed.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 15, 2011, 09:59:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:09:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 08:02:39 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 15, 2011, 07:55:07 PM
Lock for what?
The nomination.
Is this all the GOP has? Mitt Romney?
Gingrich is running, so is Pawlenty. Mitch Daniels doesn't seem to be. The rest have no shot.
I'm going to quote this so that when the nominee is neither of those, you'll look like a dumbass.
Who do you expect it to be? Santorum? Palin? Bachman?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 10:50:05 PM
I did more than squeed, I mewed.
My humble apologies, don't know the relative rankings of excitement
Quote from: katmai on May 15, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
11b,
Oh is he ever. I told him they were coming up to Alaska and he squeed!
Good band. I've been getting back into Dio era Rainbow.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 10:50:26 PM
Who do you expect it to be? Santorum? Palin? Bachman?
Sanford or Ensign :hmm:
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 15, 2011, 05:40:29 PM
Hallelujah, now all the Christian crazies can go for Santorum.
....
OH SHI-
You forgot Ron Paul. And Herman Cain. And Gary Johnson. And so on.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2011, 08:48:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2011, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2011, 08:19:52 PMIf I was Obama, I would be laughing my ass off. None of those cats will put a dent in the Obamanation.
Throw in another filled Hopey-Changey-You-Betcha-Wink-Wink Palin-filled election cycle along with that stunningly insane and uneducated Michelle Bachmann, and I see the election coming down to the wire.
Palin, I wonder what that shrill cunt is up to?
Hopefully sitting on my cock.
You don't know who or what's sitting on your cock, and can only hope that it's Palin? That sounds dangerous.
I think if Mitch Daniels runs, he'll have a shot. But IMO the smart money is on Romney. He's not perfect, but people at least know who he is.
And FWIW, I think Ron Paul will make a much bigger showing than in 2008.
Quote
His decision will leave a gap in the race for social conservative candidates such as Representative Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor.
That's an odd thing to say. Both of those would be poor substitutes for social conservatives. Neither of them really are focused on that stuff. Santorum is more likely to siphon off the Huckster's voters.
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2011, 11:15:20 AM
But IMO the smart money is on Romney. He's not perfect, but people at least know who he is.
Yeah
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2011, 11:15:20 AM
But IMO the smart money is on Romney. He's not perfect, but people at least know who he is.
I don't think even Romney knows who he is.
Romney would be a good general election candidate, but his problem is that he's going to make a poor primary candidate.
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2011, 11:15:20 AM
And FWIW, I think Ron Paul will make a much bigger showing than in 2008.
That doesn't mean very much....
This article says we may be too quick to count out the pizza guy.
http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/16/herman_cain_time
QuoteWith Huckabee out, the GOP nomination is definitely Herman Cain's to lose
...Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza (and head of the restaurant industry's lobbying organization), has been unfairly written off as an unserious candidates by the elites, because he's never won an election to anything before and he's very silly. But GOP voters have caught Cain fever. After Frank Luntz's focus group almost unanimously declared Cain the "winner" of the May 5 South Carolina debate, Cain took the Georgia Republican Party convention by storm and won the Tea Party Fort Lauderdale straw poll. As Tea Party Fort Lauderdale goes, so goes Tea Party West Des Moines...
But if we are going to elect a pizza guy, maybe we should try to poach someone from a pizza chain that isn't godfathers (if they even exist anymore).
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
That doesn't mean very much....
Seems to have gotten a Senator elected last time. It might lay the foundation for more Paulites winning office.
Well no more Trump to kick around!
Frank Luntz's focus groups always amuse me. Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union in the late 1930ies was probably less coordinated and choreographed than his focus groups.
I don't care much either way on Huckabee. I don't find him a candidate I'd feel strong about anyway. Seems to benon-serious, or something. More like the talk show person that he actually is these days.
Quote from: katmai on May 16, 2011, 11:54:06 AM
Well no more Trump to kick around!
Wow, what a shock. ;)
He signed up for another season of celeb apprentice so kinda knew it wasn't gonna happen.
It's amazing how quickly Trump vanished from the news cycle. It's like the bullet that finished off bin Laden also finished off Trump the Candidate.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
But if we are going to elect a pizza guy, maybe we should try to poach someone from a pizza chain that isn't godfathers (if they even exist anymore).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Monaghan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Monaghan)
Quote from: Habbaku on May 15, 2011, 11:49:44 AM
Huckabee was one of the crazies.
Huh, I don't follow politics that much but I thought he was rather mainstream GOP.
Quote from: katmai on May 16, 2011, 02:21:00 PM
He signed up for another season of celeb apprentice so kinda knew it wasn't gonna happen.
He knew he wasn't going to do it the moment he knew about the laws on financial disclosure. Which was quite a while ago.
Quote from: sbr on May 16, 2011, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 15, 2011, 11:49:44 AM
Huckabee was one of the crazies.
Huh, I don't follow politics that much but I thought he was rather mainstream GOP.
Is there any difference these days?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 16, 2011, 02:21:00 PM
He signed up for another season of celeb apprentice so kinda knew it wasn't gonna happen.
He knew he wasn't going to do it the moment he knew about the laws on financial disclosure. Which was quite a while ago.
No fucking shit. Only retards thought that Trump was a serious candidate.
Quote from: DGuller on May 16, 2011, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 16, 2011, 06:30:43 PM
Huh, I don't follow politics that much but I thought he was rather mainstream GOP.
Is there any difference these days?
Yes.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
But if we are going to elect a pizza guy, maybe we should try to poach someone from a pizza chain that isn't godfathers (if they even exist anymore).
I only know them to exist on military bases.
We have one up here, had some last week. Not great pizza, but not terrible either...I kinda like it sometimes, for variety.
Definitely way overpriced. Costco's is better, and far cheaper.
Godfather's exists. They are expanding again.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 16, 2011, 07:32:31 PM
Godfather's exists. They are expanding again.
At $20 for a 14" large (and that's just 1 topping!), vs $10 for an 18" at Costco, they will remain a rare novelty for my stomach.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 16, 2011, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 16, 2011, 07:32:31 PM
Godfather's exists. They are expanding again.
At $20 for a 14" large (and that's just 1 topping!), vs $10 for an 18" at Costco, they will remain a rare novelty for my stomach.
They have good pizzia, but are pricey. The GF out by my place closed down, though. Dug the salad bar.
GF was a decent high school hangout for me. Used to go there after football games. There were better pizza places that delivered in Ohio, but only one or two. Sadly, all the best places where I live now are pick-up only. So GF is the best delivery pizza around.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:53:33 PM
Romney's virtually a lock now I think.
NOW he's a lock :contract:
http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/161557-actress-cindy-crawford-now-a-romney-supporter-
Is she still fake-married to Richard Gere?
Wha?
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/style/chronicle-024031.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/style/chronicle-024031.html)
1994 Teach. I know they were married, but that was 16 years ago.
I don't read People magazine, so a couple no talent has-beens getting divorced is unlikely to blip on my radar. :P
Daniels is out and Gingrich has gone down in flames already. Looks like Pawlenty will be Romney's only serious challenger.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2011-05-22-4186269_x.htm
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 15, 2011, 05:40:29 PM
Hallelujah, now all the Christian crazies can go for Santorum.
....
OH SHI-
It would be awesome if the US had a President whose name has become a synonym of the mixture of cum and shit resulting from unprotected anal sex.
Santorum = not electable.
Huntsman! :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2011, 01:44:41 AM
Daniels is out and Gingrich has gone down in flames already. Looks like Pawlenty will be Romney's only serious challenger.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2011-05-22-4186269_x.htm
Well, if Daniels is out then I guess GOTT MIT MITT :mellow:
I can actually see Romney beating Obama. Can't really see Pawlenty doing so. :hmm:
Daniels is the only GOP candidate I could have considered voting for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2011, 05:30:47 PM
Daniels is the only GOP candidate I could have considered voting for.
Yeah. If a Republican candidate isn't willing to raise taxes, he's not worth voting for.
I can't see Romney beating Obama.
Me neither, but Republican voters "surprised" me before. I still don't get how a former Massachussets governor who enacted an Obamacare prototype got to be regarded as the conservative choice, as far back as in 2008 elections.
It all depends on how the economy is going.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2011, 06:34:52 PM
Me neither, but Republican voters "surprised" me before. I still don't get how a former Massachussets governor who enacted an Obamacare prototype got to be regarded as the conservative choice, as far back as in 2008 elections.
Neither do I. I thought he was the establishment choice.
A Mormon will never take the White House. Especially a plastic one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2011, 05:30:47 PM
Daniels is the only GOP candidate I could have considered voting for.
The Bush budget guy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2011, 05:30:47 PM
Daniels is the only GOP candidate I could have considered voting for.
No hope for Huntsman?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2011, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2011, 07:40:38 PM
The Bush budget guy?
That's the one.
Ringing fucking endorsement there. What, Erik Prince wasn't available?
I wonder if Daniels and Huckabee aren't the start of a trend of people with a real shot at the white house not running because of all the crap you go through (not that I think Huckabee had much of a chance). At a certain point, even people as narcissistic as politicians have to see that being president takes away any privacy for you and your family and you are guaranteed to be hated by about 40% of the population in the best case scenario.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2011, 09:40:50 PM
Ringing fucking endorsement there. What, Erik Prince wasn't available?
Not everyone has the luxury of running on the Illinois state budget.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2011, 09:40:50 PM
What, Erik Prince wasn't available?
He is in Abu Dahbi gathering his armies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 23, 2011, 05:30:47 PM
Daniels is the only GOP candidate I could have considered voting for.
Why is that? Are you ideologically closer to Obama than any remaining GOP contenders? Or is it a personality thing? Do the GOP guys frighten you somehow? Still grieving over McCain not being the contender in 08 that everyone thought he'd be?
McCain cost Yi $100. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2011, 10:19:34 AM
McCain cost Yi $100. :contract:
Hillary cost me $20. But it was worth every penny :)
:weep:
Now I've no horse in this race. Though I like Huntsman. Really need to roll-on to when Rubio's running :wub:
And I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
And I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney <_<
If we didn't know you, I'd call you an imbecile. But since we do, I'll just assume you're drunk.
The good thing about Romney is that he's so habitually dishonest you could be pleasantly surprised by his policies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
:weep:
Now I've no horse in this race. Though I like Huntsman. Really need to roll-on to when Rubio's running :wub:
And I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney <_<
WTF?
Romney would be a pretty moderate president. Bachmann is batshit insane.
I can get people liking Huckebee, he seems like a nice guy, but Backmann? She's a shrill ignorant harpy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2011, 10:10:28 AM
Why is that? Are you ideologically closer to Obama than any remaining GOP contenders? Or is it a personality thing? Do the GOP guys frighten you somehow? Still grieving over McCain not being the contender in 08 that everyone thought he'd be?
I think Obama has made more good decisions than bad ones and think he deserves a second term. Plus the GOP has shifted too far into fruitcake land since 08. The only Republicans I can support are those that are serious about reducing the deficit, hence Daniels.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2011, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2011, 10:10:28 AM
Why is that? Are you ideologically closer to Obama than any remaining GOP contenders? Or is it a personality thing? Do the GOP guys frighten you somehow? Still grieving over McCain not being the contender in 08 that everyone thought he'd be?
I think Obama has made more good decisions than bad ones and think he deserves a second term. Plus the GOP has shifted too far into fruitcake land since 08. The only Republicans I can support are those that are serious about reducing the deficit, hence Daniels.
This.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
And I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney <_<
If we didn't know you, I'd call you an imbecile. But since we do, I'll just assume you're drunk.
Sometimes he just likes to support the minority candidate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2011, 07:51:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
:weep:
Now I've no horse in this race. Though I like Huntsman. Really need to roll-on to when Rubio's running :wub:
And I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney <_<
WTF?
Romney would be a pretty moderate president. Bachmann is batshit insane.
I can get people liking Huckebee, he seems like a nice guy, but Backmann? She's a shrill ignorant harpy.
He likes the characters.
You can tell who the smart guys are in the GOP. They're the ones not running for President.
Yeah, I don't have a high opinion of anyone who would actually run in 2012, Obama included.
Gary Johnson for President :noisemaker:
Barring that, Obama.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2011, 07:54:01 PM
I think Obama has made more good decisions than bad ones and think he deserves a second term.
Sounds like you had the bar set really low. But agree to disagree.
QuotePlus the GOP has shifted too far into fruitcake land since 08.
In what way?
QuoteThe only Republicans I can support are those that are serious about reducing the deficit, hence Daniels.
Mitch did have some serious budget hawk credentials, but how can you say he was the only one serious about reducing the deficit? And how can that not factor into your decision to support Obama??
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
In what way?
The rise of the know-nothing Palin wing of the party, as Skippy termed it.
QuoteMitch did have some serious budget hawk credentials, but how can you say he was the only one serious about reducing the deficit? And how can that not factor into your decision to support Obama??
I can say that based on what I've read and heard about the candidates and potential candidates.
It does factor in to my support for Obama. Just that his negatives aren't as big as the GOP candidates' negatives in my mind.
Another factor in my support for Obama is dismay at the revenge cycle that has dominated presidential politics since Clinton. You trashed our guy so we're going to trash your guy. Repeat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2011, 09:55:26 AM
The rise of the know-nothing Palin wing of the party, as Skippy termed it.
Didn't know she had her own wing.
QuoteI can say that based on what I've read and heard about the candidates and potential candidates.
I don't think any candidate would get through the primary without showing he's serious about the deficit.
QuoteIt does factor in to my support for Obama. Just that his negatives aren't as big as the GOP candidates' negatives in my mind.
Fair enough. Enjoy your 4 more years of hope, change, and federal debt we'll never be able to pay off :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2011, 10:05:52 AM
Another factor in my support for Obama is dismay at the revenge cycle that has dominated presidential politics since Clinton. You trashed our guy so we're going to trash your guy. Repeat.
That factors into your
support for Obama? Obama himself has thrown Bush under the bus every chance he's had.
Palin's goofy ass Tea Party fruitcakes is enough to get me to think twice about voting republican. Of course, the dems are goofy as hell too, so I'll just stay home and finish my bunker.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:22:05 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2011, 10:05:52 AM
Another factor in my support for Obama is dismay at the revenge cycle that has dominated presidential politics since Clinton. You trashed our guy so we're going to trash your guy. Repeat.
That factors into your support for Obama? Obama himself has thrown Bush under the bus every chance he's had.
Bush, who also used his predecessor as a scape goat for when things went bad at every opportunity.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
In what way?
Stupid ideas such as birtherism. Birtherism was basically harmless, but incredibly stupid. The concern over fiat money seems to be going mainstream among republicans--see Pawlenty--before that was something for fringe candidates such as Paul. Some republican states are passing laws for alternative currencies.
Silly tax reform overhauls like the "fair tax" are getting a lot of traction on the Republican side.
The toxic reaction to anything "obamacare" related is overdone.
The latest idea to replace medicare with vouchers is a rare feat in that it combines horrible politics with horrible policy.
The general desire to sharply cut spending in a recession, but of course not on the military, isn't very sound.
Those are the first things that come to mind. I'm probably leaving a few off.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
I don't think any candidate would get through the primary without showing he's serious about the deficit.
Isn't the opposite true? If someone came into the primary saying he was going to deliver some cuts to programs (including the military) and raise taxes, he'd be lucky to escape with his life.
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2011, 11:25:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
I don't think any candidate would get through the primary without showing he's serious about the deficit.
Isn't the opposite true? If someone came into the primary saying he was going to deliver some cuts to programs (including the military) and raise taxes, he'd be lucky to escape with his life.
We'll find out. Pawlenty is currently in Iowa talking about getting rid of ethanol and farm subsidies, and is planning on heading to Florida to talk about reforming Social Security and Medicare. It's either brilliant or suicide.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
I don't think any candidate would get through the primary without showing he's not serious about the deficit.
FYP. I think no candidate serious about deficit elimination could possibly get the nod, because I think any successful candidate will have to pretend that it can be done by non-defense spending cuts alone, and I don't think that that is a serious position. It is mere posturing.
Edit: Neil beat me to the same idea.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:22:05 AM
That factors into your support for Obama? Obama himself has thrown Bush under the bus every chance he's had.
And Bush has returned the favor (refusing to appear at Ground Zero with Obama after the death of OBL, for instance).
Bush was a crap president whose administration led the country into a disaster. whining when people point this out isn't any more useful than hoover fans whining that he took the heat for the start of the First Depression.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2011, 12:18:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
I don't think any candidate would get through the primary without showing he's not serious about the deficit.
FYP. I think no candidate serious about deficit elimination could possibly get the nod, because I think any successful candidate will have to pretend that it can be done by non-defense spending cuts alone, and I don't think that that is a serious position. It is mere posturing.
Yep. And no raising taxes under any circumstances. A serious person would be warning that there will be sacrifices in painful areas. To win you have to pretend Santa Claus exists.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2011, 12:21:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:22:05 AM
That factors into your support for Obama? Obama himself has thrown Bush under the bus every chance he's had.
And Bush has returned the favor (refusing to appear at Ground Zero with Obama after the death of OBL, for instance).
Really? That's pathetic. Childishness like that in his moment of triumph is foolish.
QuoteBush was a crap president whose administration led the country into a disaster. whining when people point this out isn't any more useful than hoover fans whining that he took the heat for the start of the First Depression.
I suppose you could say that if you think that US administrations lead anyone into anything anymore. It seems to me that the Bush II administration was the culmination of a series of trends that have been building since Reagan.
Interesting article on Slate today talking about Gates and the future with respect to defense spending, and some hard choices that are going to have to be made in the next several years in order to enact the cuts that are going to be coming.
I was amused when all the Republicans voted against ending subsidies to the largest oil companies, claiming it would be "raising taxes".
Yeah, we can't be ending subsidies - that would be like raising taxes and thus increasing the size of the government and creating market distortions! :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2011, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 09:48:55 AM
In what way?
Stupid ideas such as birtherism. Birtherism was basically harmless, but incredibly stupid. The concern over fiat money seems to be going mainstream among republicans--see Pawlenty--before that was something for fringe candidates such as Paul. Some republican states are passing laws for alternative currencies.
Silly tax reform overhauls like the "fair tax" are getting a lot of traction on the Republican side.
The toxic reaction to anything "obamacare" related is overdone.
The latest idea to replace medicare with vouchers is a rare feat in that it combines horrible politics with horrible policy.
The general desire to sharply cut spending in a recession, but of course not on the military, isn't very sound.
Those are the first things that come to mind. I'm probably leaving a few off.
Thanks for sharing. I was asking Yi for his opinion :bowler:
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:10:35 PM
Thanks for sharing. I was asking Yi for his opinion :bowler:
Aren't we all Yi?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 25, 2011, 03:05:43 PM
I was amused when all the Republicans voted against ending subsidies to the largest oil companies, claiming it would be "raising taxes".
Well, technically the measure would have eliminated tax breaks. When you lose tax breaks, then your tax liability does go up. So it's not dishonest to call that raising taxes.
QuoteYeah, we can't be ending subsidies - that would be like raising taxes and thus increasing the size of the government and creating market distortions! :lol:
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 25, 2011, 11:57:10 AM
We'll find out. Pawlenty is currently in Iowa talking about getting rid of ethanol and farm subsidies,
That made me finally take notice of him. I've liked what I've heard, so far.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2011, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:10:35 PM
Thanks for sharing. I was asking Yi for his opinion :bowler:
Aren't we all Yi?
I feel like I don't know Yi any more :weep:
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
No, that's not a good idea. Creating tax subsidies for industries that need incentive to expand for social reasons (solar satellites, fission reactors or fusion reactors) when to do so might not otherwise be profitable is a worthwhile use of the government's ability to set tax rates.
Quote from: Neil on May 25, 2011, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
No, that's not a good idea. Creating tax subsidies for industries that need incentive to expand for social reasons (solar satellites, fission reactors or fusion reactors) when to do so might not otherwise be profitable is a worthwhile use of the government's ability to set tax rates.
Nah, no thanks. But if you guys want to subsidize that stuff, feel free.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
I don't understand. Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right? If the government needs money why not eliminate the oil subsidy even if you don't eliminate all subsidies?
It never made sense to me to tolerate something bad because we cannot eliminate
all evil.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Nah, no thanks. But if you guys want to subsidize that stuff, feel free.
No, you'll subsidize that. And you'll subsidize oil, and ethanol, and pretty much everything else. There is no political support to cut much of anything in your country.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 10:22:05 AM
That factors into your support for Obama? Obama himself has thrown Bush under the bus every chance he's had.
Yes. To end a feud someone has to make the first gesture. That person is ME.:punk:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2011, 08:02:19 PM
Yes. To end a feud someone has to make the first gesture. That person is ME.:punk:
Your beautiful black President thanks you for your support. Welcome back to sanity, my brother.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2011, 08:04:45 PM
Welcome back to sanity, my brother.
If you move out to Seattle now you might be in time to vote for Kucinich.
If you jack up oil company taxes you aren't going to hurt much--at current prices they aren't going to cut back production. But this idea they are weaseling out of taxes isn't accurate: exxon had an effective tax rate of 45% last year, chevron 40.3%, and conoco phillips 42.2% (I think those are the 3 largest american producers). Compared with the rest of the fortune 500 they are paying quite a bit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2011, 07:51:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
:weep:
Now I've no horse in this race. Though I like Huntsman. Really need to roll-on to when Rubio's running :wub:
And I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney <_<
WTF?
Romney would be a pretty moderate president. Bachmann is batshit insane.
I can get people liking Huckebee, he seems like a nice guy, but Backmann? She's a shrill ignorant harpy.
I've liked Bachmann ever since she bitch-slapped Chris Matthews on election night last year.
Though for some odd reason I keep wanting to call her "Barbara" Bachmann :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2011, 12:05:24 PM
I've liked Bachmann ever since she bitch-slapped Chris Matthews on election night last year.
An accomplishment that's only marginally more difficult than breathing.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2011, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
I don't understand. Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right? If the government needs money why not eliminate the oil subsidy even if you don't eliminate all subsidies?
It never made sense to me to tolerate something bad because we cannot eliminate all evil.
What are the subsidies actually for, with the oil companies? Lots of companies get some kind of subsidy, I think even some tax accounting methods might be considered subsidies? I just think that every time there's a spike in oil prices the current White House occupant, and various politicians, ramp up the same old stuff against the oil comps. Congressional hearings, keeping a watch for oil company price gouging, stop the speculators, etc. Clinton, Bush, now Obama all have done the same. And never anything seems to be found, or nothing very substantial. Seems as much a show as anything substantial to satisfy the public, make it look like the pols are doing something.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 26, 2011, 01:20:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2011, 12:05:24 PM
I've liked Bachmann ever since she bitch-slapped Chris Matthews on election night last year.
An accomplishment that's only marginally more difficult than breathing.
True, but for whatever reason few people he has on his show seem willing to challenge him.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 2011, 08:33:29 PM
If you jack up oil company taxes you aren't going to hurt much--at current prices they aren't going to cut back production. But this idea they are weaseling out of taxes isn't accurate: exxon had an effective tax rate of 45% last year, chevron 40.3%, and conoco phillips 42.2% (I think those are the 3 largest american producers). Compared with the rest of the fortune 500 they are paying quite a bit.
I was under the impression that these tax breaks were primarily for small independent operators and didn't apply to companies like COP, CVX and XOM.
The oil company issue is probably driven by the fact that gas prices go up immidiately after oil prices go up but never seem to come down in the same way. Also, for some reason all gas stations have the same price and increase in concert with one another - at least around here.
Highly efficient market or something else at work?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2011, 02:04:01 PM
The oil company issue is probably driven by the fact that gas prices go up immidiately after oil prices go up but never seem to come down in the same way. Also, for some reason all gas stations have the same price and increase in concert with one another - at least around here.
Highly efficient market or something else at work?
Yeah, the gas price thing doesn't make sense. Every time someone explains it to me, they always rely on 'the prices stay high because the more expensive oil is just working its way through the system', but that doesn't jive with the way that gas prices spike in concert with the increase in oil prices, not as the refined product reaches consumers.
The gas station thing isn't really an issue since most of them are chains anyways.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/electoral-consequences-of-rapture.html
Quote
Gingrich has completely tanked with Republican voters, providing real confirmation that his campaign rollout has been a total disaster. Only 38% of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of him and there are now more, at 45%, with an unfavorable one. I doubt anyone has ever been nominated for President who ever had negative favorability numbers within their own party less than a year out from the primary season.
It does make you wonder if he actually wants to win.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
Deal. Glad to have you on board.
I love ethanol subsides. nom nom nom.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2011, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
Deal. Glad to have you on board.
Always been there :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2011, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
Deal. Glad to have you on board.
Your lack of support for technological advancement has been noted. Please stop throwing your wooden shoes into our machines, thanks.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 04:35:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2011, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Cut all the other energy subsidies as well I 'd be in favor of ending them for oil companies.
Deal. Glad to have you on board.
Your lack of support for technological advancement has been noted. Please stop throwing your wooden shoes into our machines, thanks.
Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage! :punk:
But seriously, we're all for privately funded technological advancement. We can no longer afford so many government-financed boondoggles, though.
Re: gas prices, the wife & I were talking just yesterday about how ridiculously cheap gas used to be. Ten years ago, she could fill up her Miata for less than $10 :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2011, 04:43:04 PM
Re: gas prices, the wife & I were talking just yesterday about how ridiculously cheap gas used to be. Ten years ago, she could fill up her Miata for less than $10 :lol:
I remember there was a specific gas station I would go to because the gas was 89 cents a gallon. Ah 1995.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2011, 04:41:30 PM
But seriously, we're all for privately funded technological advancement. We can no longer afford so many government-financed boondoggles, though.
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days. Even if you ignore the fact that our society has shaped itself in such a way that fundamental scientific advancement is looked down upon, the tools which advance modern science are extremely expensive. Government grants and tax incentives are pretty important.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 26, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
It does make you wonder if he actually wants to win.
Win or lose, a run gives good publicity for his books.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2011, 12:05:24 PM
I've liked Bachmann ever since she bitch-slapped Chris Matthews on election night last year.
Link, please. I've seen too much of Bachmann getting steamrolled by Chris too many times, starting with her crazy "The FBI needs to investigate for Socialists in the House of Representatives" interview.
:bleeding:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2011, 02:04:01 PM
The oil company issue is probably driven by the fact that gas prices go up immidiately after oil prices go up but never seem to come down in the same way. Also, for some reason all gas stations have the same price and increase in concert with one another - at least around here.
Highly efficient market or something else at work?
Easy. They spike it to go as high as it can, they sustain it to make sure consumers can tolerate it for a specific time frame, and then, when they know nothing will be done about it, they drop it just *this* much, which is interpreted as a relief.
Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2011, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2011, 07:51:05 PM
Romney would be a pretty moderate president. Bachmann is batshit insane.
I can get people liking Huckebee, he seems like a nice guy, but Backmann? She's a shrill ignorant harpy.
He likes the characters.
I don't like Bachmann - she's genuinely a mentalist. I just can't stand Romney and in a way I think his single minded devotion to winning high office makes him scarier than even the Palins or Cains of this world. He just seems like the sort of person whose every choice in life has been conditioned by the desire to be President. I think that being human should be a minimum requirement and Romney doesn't meet that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
I don't like Bachmann - she's genuinely a mentalist. I just can't stand Romney and in a way I think his single minded devotion to winning high office makes him scarier than even the Palins or Cains of this world. He just seems like the sort of person whose every choice in life has been conditioned by the desire to be President. I think that being human should be a minimum requirement and Romney doesn't meet that.
I'd rather someone who planned for it, rather than someone who decided it might be nice to try for the presidency because they gave a nice speech. Sticking with one's goals isn't inhuman - unless of course, one's point of view is from that of a bohemian.
But any rate, my comment was really that your "preferences" don't really seem to be related to who would actually be a good president.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 12:06:16 PM
I'd rather someone who planned for it, rather than someone who decided it might be nice to try for the presidency because they gave a nice speech. Sticking with one's goals isn't inhuman - unless of course, one's point of view is from that of a bohemian.
But any rate, my comment was really that your "preferences" don't really seem to be related to who would actually be a good president.
I gotta agree, Sheilbh. "I'd rather see Bachmann in the White House than Romney" had to be the strangest thing I had heard you say on Languish, until you accused Romney of being nonhuman. I'd say you are allowing your dislike of the man to make you take silly positions.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
When it comes to energy I am relying on T Boone Pickens myself.
Well he and the good tax payers of Germany and Japan who have picked up alot of the tab in developing commerical renewable energy sources.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 12:06:16 PM
Sticking with one's goals isn't inhuman - unless of course, one's point of view is from that of a bohemian.
I never moaned about him sticking with his goals. It's that he gives the impression that nothing he's ever done has been done without the consideration of his eventual Presidential run. He's like Gordon Brown without the easy warmth and charm.
QuoteBut any rate, my comment was really that your "preferences" don't really seem to be related to who would actually be a good president.
I think character matters a lot. My actual preferences for the Presidency would be Obama, Biden, Huckabee, Rubio, Daniels, Huntsman and maybe Jeb Bush. I can't think of many other Democrats.
Romney is just at the bottom of my anti-preference, with Gravel.
Quote from: Valmy on May 27, 2011, 12:45:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
When it comes to energy I am relying on T Boone Pickens myself.
Well he and the good tax payers of Germany and Japan who have picked up alot of the tab in developing commerical renewable energy sources.
Even if you read Neil as qualifying his statement about technology as being limited to renewable energy technology, there is a lot of private investment going on in that area. It has the feel of the tech boom of the late 90s.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
Exactly. The only thing you can trust private money to do is to iterate the work of others in order to turn a buck. True discovery is beyond them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
I think that being human should be a minimum requirement and Romney doesn't meet that.
While US presidents are invariably biologically human, they nature of modern politics and journalism are such that people who haven't been groomed for the office from childhood are inevitably excluded.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2011, 12:05:24 PM
I've liked Bachmann ever since she bitch-slapped Chris Matthews on election night last year.
Link, please. I've seen too much of Bachmann getting steamrolled by Chris too many times, starting with her crazy "The FBI needs to investigate for Socialists in the House of Representatives" interview.
Claiming the FBI needs to investigate for Socialists counts as "bitch-slapping" in the conservative Breitbart mindset.
I remember someone put up a clip from Chris Matthews where some GOPtard was rambling on about appeasement and Munich and Matthews asked if the guy even knew what happened at Munich. It quickly became evident the GOPtard did not and Derspeiss considered this "unfair".
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
I just can't stand Romney and in a way I think his single minded devotion to winning high office makes him scarier than even the Palins or Cains of this world. He just seems like the sort of person whose every choice in life has been conditioned by the desire to be President.
Did you dislike Clinton for the same reasons?
Was Bill Clinton's avoiding the draft and smoking pot decisions to propel him into the Whitehouse?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
But what about other miracles of the last decade or two? Can a company even the size of Google come up with GPS? Or Internet, for that matter?
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
But what about other miracles of the last decade or two? Can a company even the size of Google come up with GPS? Or Internet, for that matter?
I am not saying there is no role for government. I am saying it is not the only thing that "drives technology these days".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 01:25:24 PM
Was Bill Clinton's avoiding the draft and smoking pot decisions to propel him into the Whitehouse?
No, nor were his other shenanigans. But by his own account he had his eyes firmly set on becoming president since he met JFK. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
But what about other miracles of the last decade or two? Can a company even the size of Google come up with GPS? Or Internet, for that matter?
Yeah, or space trav-- oh, oops, never mind :P
Somehow I don't see private travel to the Moon in the cards, at least not for a while.
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 02:56:09 PM
Somehow I don't see private travel to the Moon in the cards, at least not for a while.
And that's a bad thing why, exactly?
Moon is boring. Not much up there.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 27, 2011, 02:56:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 02:56:09 PM
Somehow I don't see private travel to the Moon in the cards, at least not for a while.
And that's a bad thing why, exactly?
Without moon travel, we wouldn't have the Apollo 13 movie.
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 02:56:09 PM
Somehow I don't see private travel to the Moon in the cards, at least not for a while.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
The moon? No, not anytime soon. But space is space!
Only 60 years behind the Reds.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 02:58:44 PM
Moon is boring. Not much up there.
No green moon men? No hot chicks whose only non-human trait is antennas coming out of their heads? :weep:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 03:06:15 PM
Only 60 years behind the Reds.
And look how far ahead of us they are today!
Quote from: Habbaku on May 27, 2011, 03:09:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 03:06:15 PM
Only 60 years behind the Reds.
And look how far ahead of us they are today!
Who is this "us"? I'm not part of a private space company.
Quote from: derspiess on May 27, 2011, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
You'd be amazed at how little private funding drives technology these days.
You mean like Twitter, Google and Microsoft?
But what about other miracles of the last decade or two? Can a company even the size of Google come up with GPS? Or Internet, for that matter?
Yeah, or space trav-- oh, oops, never mind :P
The only manned voyage to anywhere in space was funded by a national government, as have most, if not all, of the unmanned voyages.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 04:58:49 PM
The only manned voyage to anywhere in space was funded by a national government, as have most, if not all, of the unmanned voyages.
Not sure if that is an argument for or against government funding of technology.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 04:58:49 PM
The only manned voyage to anywhere in space was funded by a national government, as have most, if not all, of the unmanned voyages.
"Anywhere in space" includes near-earth orbit, doesn't it?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 27, 2011, 05:29:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 04:58:49 PM
The only manned voyage to anywhere in space was funded by a national government, as have most, if not all, of the unmanned voyages.
"Anywhere in space" includes near-earth orbit, doesn't it?
I only count the lunar voyages, as they were the only ones going somewhere. Everybody else was just passing through.
Quote from: derspiess on May 27, 2011, 01:24:09 PM
Did you dislike Clinton for the same reasons?
Actually those were some of the reasons I did dislike Hillary. She came across too much like that girl in Election.
I don't think anyone can accuse Bill of lacking humanity. He may always have wanted to be President but he's still gloriously flawed enough to carry on smoking cigars, binging on fast food and getting blow jobs off interns.
Bill's character's as flawed as the next man. That's precisely my problem with Romney: his isn't. He's got no hinterland there, just an empty room screening his inauguration. He seems like the sort of person who's been running an incredibly disciplined campaign from when he could walk.
It's like his political beliefs. I think Romney would shift almost any of them to get a shot at the Presidency, I feel he almost doesn't have any beliefs whatsoever - and that's how his entire character comes across to me. He seems like a hollow man, a virtual candidate. That's why I prefer Huntsman or Pawlenty who are, in their own ways, similar. They seem real.
From what I heard in 2008, all the other GOP candidates hated Romney. Except Paul, who wasn't aware that he was on the same planet as Romney. Apparently he's a two-faced vicious bastard. That has to count as a flaw.
He's also a Mormon.
Clinton did an impressive job covering up for his past, lying about it, and selling himself. He also had the advantage of running in one of the weakest fields of Democrats since the Civil War. Tsongas the cancer patient, Jerry Brown the hippie governor, Jackson, Gore and Cuomo not running meant that the field was wide open.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 27, 2011, 07:32:13 PM
He's also a Mormon.
While that's a little weird, Mormons have their uses. They use their deep pockets to prevent the legimization of Martinusim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
I never moaned about him sticking with his goals. It's that he gives the impression that nothing he's ever done has been done without the consideration of his eventual Presidential run. He's like Gordon Brown without the easy warmth and charm.
Again is ambition that terrible? Of course, I think you have that last sentence wrong as Romney certainly has more charm than Brown could ever dream of.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
I think character matters a lot. My actual preferences for the Presidency would be Obama, Biden, Huckabee, Rubio, Daniels, Huntsman and maybe Jeb Bush. I can't think of many other Democrats.
What character do Huntsman and Rubio bring? Being mostly unknown? :unsure:
I think you underrate the importance of the President having some standing in his own party (a weakness for Romney in many places to be sure). Obama's "character" didn't seem to help much when members of his own party had better standing in Congress.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2011, 12:49:25 PM
Romney is just at the bottom of my anti-preference, with Gravel.
I don't really see how those two could be lumped together.
Clinton won because he had been a terrific governor of one of the worst states in the country. That was the past people were looking at. His charisma helped him, but his record is what sold him to the voters.
Sheilbh, thanks for the explanation. I still think you are nuts, but I no longer think you are confused. You simply value political attributes that I despise, and vice-versa. :hug:
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 07:45:08 PM
Clinton did an impressive job covering up for his past, lying about it, and selling himself. He also had the advantage of running in one of the weakest fields of Democrats since the Civil War. Tsongas the cancer patient, Jerry Brown the hippie governor, Jackson, Gore and Cuomo not running meant that the field was wide open.
Did they know Tsongas had cancer then? Anyway, what Clinton's secret was, and it was something the GOP never forgave him for, was that he able to sideline the party nuts (who had been taking over the party in the 1980's. Conservatives characterized him as the arch-liberal, but he really wasn't one. Some foolish hippy arch-liberal they could easily pigeon-hole. A Democrat who takes the center, and even steals conservative ideas is a deadly danger to the Republican party.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 08:02:06 PM
Clinton won because he had been a terrific governor of one of the worst states in the country. That was the past people were looking at. His charisma helped him, but his record is what sold him to the voters.
Sheilbh, thanks for the explanation. I still think you are nuts, but I no longer think you are confused. You simply value political attributes that I despise, and vice-versa. :hug:
What did Clinton do that was so terrific as Governor?
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
I think you underrate the importance of the President having some standing in his own party (a weakness for Romney in many places to be sure). Obama's "character" didn't seem to help much when members of his own party had better standing in Congress.
True. Bush was much more effective as a party leader than Obama has been.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 08:06:26 PM
Did they know Tsongas had cancer then?
Yeah, that's what retired him as a Senator in the 80s.
QuoteAnyway, what Clinton's secret was, and it was something the GOP never forgave him for, was that he able to sideline the party nuts (who had been taking over the party in the 1980's. Conservatives characterized him as the arch-liberal, but he really wasn't one. Some foolish hippy arch-liberal they could easily pigeon-hole. A Democrat who takes the center, and even steals conservative ideas is a deadly danger to the Republican party.
You really couldn't attack him from the right on policies, which is why they attacked him from the right on his drug-smoking and womanizing.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
What character do Huntsman and Rubio bring? Being mostly unknown? :unsure:
Don't be too harsh. Rubio has been a national politician for several months now. Clearly, he has the experience to be a President. He even wrote a book!
Huntsman has the background for the job (governor, ambassador, Trade Representative, White House staff). Nothing about his character seems to make him a standout, but he certainly is someone for whom an argument could be made (unlike Rubio).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 08:07:19 PM
What did Clinton do that was so terrific as Governor?
Education, tax reform, health care reform, reduction in teen pregnancies, economic growth/unemployment reductions, and welfare reform. Plus his work nationally as chair of the National Governor's Association, forging a number of bipartisan positions on all those issues.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 08:13:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
What character do Huntsman and Rubio bring? Being mostly unknown? :unsure:
Don't be too harsh. Rubio has been a national politician for several months now. Clearly, he has the experience to be a President. He even wrote a book!
:lol:
I could maybe vote for the New Jersey Tubbo if he ran.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
I think you underrate the importance of the President having some standing in his own party (a weakness for Romney in many places to be sure). Obama's "character" didn't seem to help much when members of his own party had better standing in Congress.
True. Bush was much more effective as a party leader than Obama has been.
Bush had the Hammer. Obama has Steny Hoyer.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 08:22:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 08:07:19 PM
What did Clinton do that was so terrific as Governor?
Education, tax reform, health care reform, reduction in teen pregnancies, economic growth/unemployment reductions, and welfare reform. Plus his work nationally as chair of the National Governor's Association, forging a number of bipartisan positions on all those issues.
Okay, thank you. I actually didn't know all that. I was wasn't very old in the 1980's.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 08:22:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 08:07:19 PM
What did Clinton do that was so terrific as Governor?
Education, tax reform, health care reform, reduction in teen pregnancies, economic growth/unemployment reductions, and welfare reform. Plus his work nationally as chair of the National Governor's Association, forging a number of bipartisan positions on all those issues.
And before that, he successfully cockpunched utilities on behalf of the consumer as Attorney General.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2011, 08:53:38 PM
I could maybe vote for the New Jersey Tubbo if he ran.
Guy is impressive, and smart. Which is why he won't run in 2012. If he doesn't have a heart attack and die, he has a good chance in 2016.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 27, 2011, 08:57:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
I think you underrate the importance of the President having some standing in his own party (a weakness for Romney in many places to be sure). Obama's "character" didn't seem to help much when members of his own party had better standing in Congress.
True. Bush was much more effective as a party leader than Obama has been.
Bush had the Hammer. Obama has Steny Hoyer.
And Cheney was a heavyweight in the administration. Compare that to a guy who got caught cribbing speeches from Neil fucking Kinnock.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2011, 08:53:38 PM
I could maybe vote for the New Jersey Tubbo if he ran.
Give him a few years, if God will. It's easy to make a splash and create waves, it's harder to put together a record of accomplishments. Maybe his accomplishments will back up his bluster, but we can't know that now.
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 09:29:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2011, 08:53:38 PM
I could maybe vote for the New Jersey Tubbo if he ran.
Give him a few years, if God will. It's easy to make a splash and create waves, it's harder to put together a record of accomplishments. Maybe his accomplishments will back up his bluster, but we can't know that now.
He's one to keep an eye on. He'll have a hard job ahead of him as most Govs will for the next few years.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 08:13:19 PM
Huntsman has the background for the job (governor, ambassador, Trade Representative, White House staff). Nothing about his character seems to make him a standout, but he certainly is someone for whom an argument could be made (unlike Rubio).
Oh he's certainly a different case than a junior senator from Florida. However, I'm not sure that he has the "character" factor if many Americans have no idea who he is.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 08:13:19 PM
Huntsman has the background for the job (governor, ambassador, Trade Representative, White House staff). Nothing about his character seems to make him a standout, but he certainly is someone for whom an argument could be made (unlike Rubio).
I want to clarify that I don't think Rubio should run yet but based on what I've seen I think he'll be a really strong 2016 candidate.
QuoteOh he's certainly a different case than a junior senator from Florida. However, I'm not sure that he has the "character" factor if many Americans have no idea who he is.
That's what the primary season's for :mellow:
QuoteGuy is impressive, and smart. Which is why he won't run in 2012. If he doesn't have a heart attack and die, he has a good chance in 2016.
I'm unsure about Christie. I liked him until I found out he has staff filming those Youtube 'magic moments'. That makes him seem a bit of a bully to me, I don't think that's how a Governor should treat his constituents. Also how would he play outside the Northeast? This could be totally wrong but he seems very much of his area and I don't know how well that style would go down in, say, Iowa or Nevada.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 28, 2011, 04:18:42 AM
That's what the primary season's for :mellow:
Nah the primary season is a time to listen to irrelevant attack ads and have absolutely no idea what the candidate stands for. Actually that's the whole election cycle. :thumbsup:
Christie definitely is a bully, and a bit too loose with the facts even for a Republican.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2011, 01:57:08 PM
Christie definitely is a bully, and a bit too loose with the facts even for a Republican.
I don't want a guy who nods lovingly and feels the pain of the teachers' union. I want a guy who calls them out on their bullshit.
What bullshit is that? Generally an employer who hates his employees is not an effective employer.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 04:14:29 PM
What bullshit is that?
"Generally an employer who hates his employees is not an effective employer."
I don't think this one has been used but it's a good example of the concept.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2011, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2011, 01:57:08 PM
Christie definitely is a bully, and a bit too loose with the facts even for a Republican.
I don't want a guy who nods lovingly and feels the pain of the teachers' union. I want a guy who calls them out on their bullshit.
Again with the teachers' unions. Yi must've been molested by one or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2011, 04:37:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 04:14:29 PM
What bullshit is that?
"Generally an employer who hates his employees is not an effective employer."
I don't think this one has been used but it's a good example of the concept.
I certainly get a "hate" vibe from Republicans concerning Unions. But if the Teacher's union said that they believe Republicans love them everything would then be hunky-dory? Is that your answer?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 05:05:34 PM
I certainly get a "hate" vibe from Republicans concerning Unions. But if the Teacher's union said that they believe Republicans love them everything would then be hunky-dory? Is that your answer?
No. For everything to be hunky dory the teachers' unions would have to say "we get really nice salaries right now and enormous pensions, and we can't be fired, but unfortunately the state representatives we bought and paid for are in the minority right now so please support our efforts to keep the status quo, not because it has anything to do with the quality of education your children recieve but because we will be unhappy if we lose any of that." Then there would be no bullshit to call out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2011, 05:16:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 05:05:34 PM
I certainly get a "hate" vibe from Republicans concerning Unions. But if the Teacher's union said that they believe Republicans love them everything would then be hunky-dory? Is that your answer?
No. For everything to be hunky dory the teachers' unions would have to say "we get really nice salaries right now and enormous pensions, and we can't be fired, but unfortunately the state representatives we bought and paid for are in the minority right now so please support our efforts to keep the status quo, not because it has anything to do with the quality of education your children recieve but because we will be unhappy if we lose any of that." Then there would be no bullshit to call out.
they get really nice salaries?
Not compared to pharmacists.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 28, 2011, 06:47:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2011, 05:16:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 05:05:34 PM
I certainly get a "hate" vibe from Republicans concerning Unions. But if the Teacher's union said that they believe Republicans love them everything would then be hunky-dory? Is that your answer?
No. For everything to be hunky dory the teachers' unions would have to say "we get really nice salaries right now and enormous pensions, and we can't be fired, but unfortunately the state representatives we bought and paid for are in the minority right now so please support our efforts to keep the status quo, not because it has anything to do with the quality of education your children recieve but because we will be unhappy if we lose any of that." Then there would be no bullshit to call out.
they get really nice salaries?
No, and they can be fired. Don't know about what pensions he refers to - most teachers seem to get standard public employee pensions. But Yi never lets facts get in the way of his rants.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 28, 2011, 06:47:41 PM
they get really nice salaries?
71K goes pretty far in Wisconsin. 65K goes pretty far in Georgia. 86K goes pretty far in upstate New York.
Link?
Quote from: sbr on May 28, 2011, 08:16:37 PM
Link?
Here's the Adirondack Central School System link for wages:
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/new-york/teacher-salary-in-adirondack-central-school-district/ (http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/new-york/teacher-salary-in-adirondack-central-school-district/)
Here's a list of who actually makes what in New York State http://www.seethroughny.net/StatePayroll/tabid/69/Default.aspx?BRANCHID=6
Search for Adirondack Central Schools, and you will find that 5 teachers make $85,000 or more, out of 113.
I suppose $86,000 does go pretty far, but less than 5% of teachers in ACSS make that much.
I could go on, but these are mere facts, and would serve only to disrupt a pretty amusing rant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2011, 05:16:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 05:05:34 PM
I certainly get a "hate" vibe from Republicans concerning Unions. But if the Teacher's union said that they believe Republicans love them everything would then be hunky-dory? Is that your answer?
No. For everything to be hunky dory the teachers' unions would have to say "we get really nice salaries right now and enormous pensions, and we can't be fired, but unfortunately the state representatives we bought and paid for are in the minority right now so please support our efforts to keep the status quo, not because it has anything to do with the quality of education your children receive but because we will be unhappy if we lose any of that." Then there would be no bullshit to call out.
Okay, Rev. Moon. I'll pass that along. Of course Missouri Teachers don't have collective bargaining, so I don't know how much good it will do. Oddly, we still have budget deficits. One school district has gone to teaching only four days a week now, but that probably won't effect the quality of education those students receive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 28, 2011, 04:03:09 PM
I don't want a guy who nods lovingly and feels the pain of the teachers' union. I want a guy who calls them out on their bullshit.
He's not calling out the union - or even union officials - he's having a go at his constituents who are just teachers. Now you can respectfully disagree and argue your case, but I get the sense he's doing it to bolster his national political credentials and for theatre. I don't think that's a decent way for a Governor to deal with his constituents and I think given his position it's the behaviour of a bully.
Plus I think he'll hit a Gillian Duffy and say something to t
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 28, 2011, 08:16:37 PM
Link?
Here's the Adirondack Central School System link for wages:
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/new-york/teacher-salary-in-adirondack-central-school-district/ (http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/new-york/teacher-salary-in-adirondack-central-school-district/)
Here's a list of who actually makes what in New York State http://www.seethroughny.net/StatePayroll/tabid/69/Default.aspx?BRANCHID=6
Search for Adirondack Central Schools, and you will find that 5 teachers make $85,000 or more, out of 113.
I suppose $86,000 does go pretty far, but less than 5% of teachers in ACSS make that much.
I could go on, but these are mere facts, and would serve only to disrupt a pretty amusing rant.
Looking at your link, even the 10th percentile teachers are making roughly the median household income in Boonville, and housing prices there seem quite low. Teaching would definitely be a good living there. Mind you, that's not a bad thing, since Oneida County doesn't have a lot going for it.
Quote from: Neil on May 29, 2011, 09:45:56 AM
Looking at your link, even the 10th percentile teachers are making roughly the median household income in Boonville, and housing prices there seem quite low. Teaching would definitely be a good living there. Mind you, that's not a bad thing, since Oneida County doesn't have a lot going for it.
No one is arguing that those teachers are grossly underpaid, though only Middle and High School teachers make more on average than the median household income for the county (elementary teachers are right on the average). Remember that these are all college-educated and credentialed professionals, though. Their pay may be average to slightly above average, but their education is well above average. It is the below-average working hours that justify the fact that they don't get paid the wages of typical professionals.
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2011, 10:30:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 29, 2011, 09:45:56 AM
Looking at your link, even the 10th percentile teachers are making roughly the median household income in Boonville, and housing prices there seem quite low. Teaching would definitely be a good living there. Mind you, that's not a bad thing, since Oneida County doesn't have a lot going for it.
No one is arguing that those teachers are grossly underpaid, though only Middle and High School teachers make more on average than the median household income for the county (elementary teachers are right on the average). Remember that these are all college-educated and credentialed professionals, though. Their pay may be average to slightly above average, but their education is well above average. It is the below-average working hours that justify the fact that they don't get paid the wages of typical professionals.
The median household income for the school district is $44,750. All the groups of full-time teachers average more than that. Still, I can't argue that these people spent the time and money to get their paper, and so the system owes them a good living.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2011, 09:30:26 PM
Okay, Rev. Moon. I'll pass that along. Of course Missouri Teachers don't have collective bargaining, so I don't know how much good it will do. Oddly, we still have budget deficits. One school district has gone to teaching only four days a week now, but that probably won't effect the quality of education those students receive.
It's Missouri, what real hope did they have? :tinfoil:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 25, 2011, 10:22:25 AM
Palin's goofy ass Tea Party fruitcakes is enough to get me to think twice about voting republican. Of course, the dems are goofy as hell too, so I'll just stay home and finish my bunker.
Stop popping out more kids and won't have to keep updating it sheesh.
Quote from: katmai on May 29, 2011, 07:49:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 25, 2011, 10:22:25 AM
Palin's goofy ass Tea Party fruitcakes is enough to get me to think twice about voting republican. Of course, the dems are goofy as hell too, so I'll just stay home and finish my bunker.
Stop popping out more kids and won't have to keep updating it sheesh.
But it is so fun.
Updating a bunker...I guess.
Quote from: katmai on May 29, 2011, 08:19:58 PM
Updating a bunker...I guess.
Making the kids. It is like the Boys from Brazil.
I thought that was all done in Petrie dish?
Anyone see the Republican debate? Did Romney do as well as reported?
http://www.slate.com/id/2296912/
Princesca did... predictably, she thought that Ron Paul won it.
You know, she hasn't been around here much lately. Rocky Horror hasn't been around in years. VM and Scipio are infrequent visitors. What does Languish do to scare off the Libertarians? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 14, 2011, 09:09:38 AM
You know, she hasn't been around here much lately. Rocky Horror hasn't been around in years. VM and Scipio are infrequent visitors. What does Languish do to scare off the Libertarians? :hmm:
They still seem thick as flies to me. <_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 14, 2011, 09:09:38 AM
You know, she hasn't been around here much lately. Rocky Horror hasn't been around in years. VM and Scipio are infrequent visitors. What does Languish do to scare off the Libertarians? :hmm:
She lurks from time to time, but almost never posts... not sure why really. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 14, 2011, 09:09:38 AM
You know, she hasn't been around here much lately. Rocky Horror hasn't been around in years. VM and Scipio are infrequent visitors. What does Languish do to scare off the Libertarians? :hmm:
I want to know as well, so that it can be applied on other infested boards.
Well I'm supposedly a libertarian too, so whatever eradication method that was applied here didn't entirely work. :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 14, 2011, 10:14:42 AM
Well I'm supposedly a libertarian too, so whatever eradication method that was applied here didn't entirely work. :(
I might as well be one too. :console:
Enlighten me boys. What's the diff between libertardians and anarchists.
Serious question btw.
There seems to be significant overlap between the two.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 15, 2011, 01:34:44 AM
Enlighten me boys. What's the diff between libertardians and anarchists.
Serious question btw.
Most anarchists want to abolish private property which is a big no-no in libertarian circles. Libertarians generally don't want to abolish government either, simply minimize it's roll.
Libertarians: Reduce the power of the state. Until they need food stamps, then WHERE IS MAH FOOD STAMPS? Then when they recover, resume bitching about government.
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2011, 09:31:02 AM
They still seem thick as flies to me. <_<
Yeah but these days all you need to do is want the budget to be balanced and the laws followed to be considered a Libertarian.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 15, 2011, 01:34:44 AM
Enlighten me boys. What's the diff between libertardians and anarchists.
Serious question btw.
For the pure Libertarians none at all really.
There are 'Minarchist' Libertarians who merely want the State to be as small as possible and those are the guys who participate in politics...for obvious reasons the pure guys find the whole process of elections evil and corrupt and blah blah.
You Euros need to realize that our libertarians are a bit different from yours. It seems that in Euro-land, libertarians do tend towards anarchism. But that's not the case over here. Raz more or less summed it up.
I probably should have spelled "Role" correctly.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2011, 09:41:46 AM
I probably should have spelled "Role" correctly.
I was going to make a jab about government-funded dinner rolls but decided agin' it.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 15, 2011, 01:34:44 AM
Enlighten me boys. What's the diff between libertardians and anarchists.
Serious question btw.
They come at it from completely different origins to start with. Libertarians are an extension of classic liberalism, with it's emphasis on individual rights, and in particular property rights.
Anarchism, when promoted as an actual political philosophy (and not something for drugged out highschoolers to believe in) comes from the political left-wing, and is grounded more in communist / collectivist political thought.
Obviously there is some overlap in the philosophies, but that is the significant difference.
Yeah. Loony libertarians have a strong undercurrent of 'what's mine is mine and I'll shoot you to keep it', while loony anarchists have a strong undercurrent of 'what's yours is mine and I'll shoot you to take it'.
Libertardians believe the government should not be involved in mental retardation. But everyone knows that's impossible.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2011, 10:05:04 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 15, 2011, 01:34:44 AM
Enlighten me boys. What's the diff between libertardians and anarchists.
Serious question btw.
They come at it from completely different origins to start with. Libertarians are an extension of classic liberalism, with it's emphasis on individual rights, and in particular property rights.
Anarchism, when promoted as an actual political philosophy (and not something for drugged out highschoolers to believe in) comes from the political left-wing, and is grounded more in communist / collectivist political thought.
Obviously there is some overlap in the philosophies, but that is the significant difference.
There is at least one strand of anarchism that comes from libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism like that espoused by Murray Rothbard.
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2011, 11:10:41 AM
Yeah. Loony libertarians have a strong undercurrent of 'what's mine is mine and I'll shoot you to keep it', while loony anarchists have a strong undercurrent of 'what's yours is mine and I'll shoot you to take it'.
That's pretty good Neil. There's your one point for 2011. :thumbsup:
But you went oh-fer in 2010 so you're still one in the hole. :(
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2011, 09:16:42 AM
Yeah but these days all you need to do is want the budget to be balanced and the laws followed to be considered a Libertarian.
By whom? :huh: