Starting now. Gingrich got boos right out of the gate. :lol:
How many times has Obama been blamed for the bad economy already? Does anyone keep count?
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 08:07:06 PM
How many times has Obama been blamed for the bad economy already? Does anyone keep count?
I have a bottle of Clontarf. Should I take a drink every time it happens? :P
It should help dull the pain if you insist on watching the debate, yes.
It took 12 minutes for an appeal to Ronald Reagan. Newt's first sentence, actually.
Pawlenty just outright called Bachmann a liar and a failure. :lmfao:
Are they fighting over who will cut revenue more?
What on Earth is the point in watching religion-induced insanity debate with Voodoo-economics fanaticism!?
G.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 08:21:42 PM
Pawlenty just outright called Bachmann a liar and a failure. :lmfao:
Wow, that spine implant sure is working. Maybe it's working too well, it needs to be tuned further.
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 08:33:23 PM
What on Earth is the point in watching religion-induced insanity debate with Voodoo-economics fanaticism!?
G.
Our innate desire to be dominated and tortured.
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
I've said it before - I'll repeat it again: The US will crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And that schizophrenic fixation about taxation (and state power behind it) among the American Populus is one of the most glaring of those contradictions; in fact I'd wager it's what will drive their republic under. Mark my word.
G.
If society actually implemented the things Gral wants, he would be the first against the wall. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 08:52:02 PM
If society actually implemented the things Gral wants, he would be the first against the wall. :P
We're not talking about my personal Utopia - but your very real Dystopia.
G.
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Today's GOP ideology should be viewed as religion, and the kind of religion invented by a crazed lunatic.
Santorum argues against the tenth amendment so he can ban gay marriage. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I've said it before - I'll repeat it again: The US will crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And that schizophrenic fixation about taxation (and state power behind it) among the American Populus is one of the most glaring of those contradictions; in fact I'd wager it's what will drive their republic under. Mark my word.
Are you under the impression that this is some kind of great insight?
"Eventually, a political unit will cease to exist because of internal factors!"
Well hol-ee shit, professor. That is in-fucking-credible.
Are any of our America posters under the impression that the US is some sort of perpetual state?
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Today's GOP ideology should be viewed as religion, and the kind of religion invented by a crazed lunatic.
You're just as bad.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:01:42 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I've said it before - I'll repeat it again: The US will crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And that schizophrenic fixation about taxation (and state power behind it) among the American Populus is one of the most glaring of those contradictions; in fact I'd wager it's what will drive their republic under. Mark my word.
Are you under the impression that this is some kind of great insight?
"Eventually, a political unit will cease to exist because of internal factors!"
Well hol-ee shit, professor. That is in-fucking-credible.
Are any of our America posters under the impression that the US is some sort of perpetual state?
Tim, maybe
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I've said it before - I'll repeat it again: The US will crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And that schizophrenic fixation about taxation (and state power behind it) among the American Populus is one of the most glaring of those contradictions; in fact I'd wager it's what will drive their republic under. Mark my word.
I marked your word when we were "in the throes of a theocracy" during the Bush years. Still waiting for that.
Anyway, a few years ago people said the national divide on abortion was what would tear our country apart. We've lived with regional & philosophical differences since before we were an independent country. I think we'll survive this.
So stop being a goddamned drama queen.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:04:26 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I've said it before - I'll repeat it again: The US will crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And that schizophrenic fixation about taxation (and state power behind it) among the American Populus is one of the most glaring of those contradictions; in fact I'd wager it's what will drive their republic under. Mark my word.
I marked your word when we were "in the throes of a theocracy" during the Bush years. Still waiting for that.
Anyway, a few years ago people said the national divide on abortion was what would tear our country apart. We've lived with regional & philosophical differences since before we were an independent country. I think we'll survive this.
So stop being a goddamned drama queen.
Well, Quebec will certainly benefit. After the Republic falls and the Empire is established the US will govern Quebec correctly. Perhaps in a few centuries it can rise as high as say, Louisiana.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 09:08:21 PM
Well, Quebec will certainly benefit. After the Republic falls and the Empire is established the US will govern Quebec correctly. Perhaps in a few centuries it can rise as high as say, Louisiana.
:D
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
You're just as bad.
No, I'm not. Just because I'm annoyed by idiots to the point of using very sharp language does not mean that I'm an equivalent idiot. It just means that I've just had it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Today's GOP ideology should be viewed as religion, and the kind of religion invented by a crazed lunatic.
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. We probably would need to do that in order to pay down the debt once the budget is balanced.
Now I wouldn't be totally against what some Dems have suggested and reducing loopholes/deductions and lowering the corporate tax rate a bit as a means of increasing revenue.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:01:42 PM
...
Are any of our America posters under the impression that the US is some sort of perpetual state?
:lol:
Yes , yes they are - the pinnacle of human civilization and all that.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:01:42 PM
...
Are any of our America posters under the impression that the US is some sort of perpetual state?
:lol:
Yes , yes they are - the pinnacle of human civilization and all that.
G.
This from a native French speaker? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Today's GOP ideology should be viewed as religion, and the kind of religion invented by a crazed lunatic.
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. We probably would need to do that in order to pay down the debt once the budget is balanced.
Now I wouldn't be totally against what some Dems have suggested and reducing loopholes/deductions and lowering the corporate tax rate a bit as a means of increasing revenue.
I suppose if you don't want an army anymore, sure I guess.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC0oLQjDJgs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC0oLQjDJgs) :P
G.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Sure we don't. Our current levels have worked like a charm keeping the budget balanced. Oh, yeah, I forgot, if it wasn't for all that out of control spending. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 09:19:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Today's GOP ideology should be viewed as religion, and the kind of religion invented by a crazed lunatic.
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. We probably would need to do that in order to pay down the debt once the budget is balanced.
Now I wouldn't be totally against what some Dems have suggested and reducing loopholes/deductions and lowering the corporate tax rate a bit as a means of increasing revenue.
I suppose if you don't want an army anymore, sure I guess.
That's taking it a bit far, but we could stand to reduce defense spending.
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:01:42 PM
...
Are any of our America posters under the impression that the US is some sort of perpetual state?
:lol:
Yes , yes they are - the pinnacle of human civilization and all that.
G.
Being the pinnacle of human civilization is great, but it hardly guarantees any perpetuity.
After all, every single OTHER pinnacle of human civilization has become the not pinnacle. I am sure the US of Pinacle A will do the same.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 09:21:44 PM
Sure we don't. Our current levels have worked like a charm keeping the budget balanced. Oh, yeah, I forgot, if it wasn't for all that out of control spending. :rolleyes:
Glad we agree now :hug:
Did she just say she has 23 foster children? Is that her version of collecting cats? wtf
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 09:31:05 PM
Did she just say she has 23 foster children? Is that her version of collecting cats? wtf
Maybe she's envious of the Duggars but is too old to do it the way they did it.
I somehow got my wife to watch the GOP debate with me. Her favorite guy so far: Ron Paul :huh:
Ron Paul is at least consistent.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:22:52 PM
That's taking it a bit far, but we could stand to reduce defense spending.
Out of curiosity, where has the bulk of spending increases been in the last decade?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 11, 2011, 09:43:44 PM
Ron Paul is at least consistent.
And God love him for it. I agree with him on quite a few issues, but the ones where we differ tend to be huge. Like his stance on Iran.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 09:31:05 PM
Did she just say she has 23 foster children? Is that her version of collecting cats? meowtf
fyp
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
Out of curiosity, where has the bulk of spending increases been in the last decade?
http://tinyurl.com/45y97qp
That didn't help me. I guess you don't know.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 11, 2011, 09:43:44 PM
Ron Paul is at least consistent.
Monomaniacs typically are.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 09:58:32 PM
That didn't help me. I guess you don't know.
I was hoping you'd tell me.
My wife asked me that if Cain somehow got the nomination, which guy would blacks vote for. She's so naive :D
Ron Paul got the most applause. That has a psychological effect on certain types of people.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
Ron Paul got the most applause. That has a psychological effect on certain types of people.
If by people you mean those clapper lights, sure.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
Ron Paul got the most applause. That has a psychological effect on certain types of people.
My wife just agreed with about everything he said.
Oh, and she really hates Brett Baer now for some reason :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
Ron Paul got the most applause. That has a psychological effect on certain types of people.
My wife just agreed with about everything he said.
Oh, and she really hates Brett Baer now for some reason :lol:
An Argentine? Well that's a ringing endorsement.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 10:15:16 PM
My wife just agreed with about everything he said.
Did he say all the other candidates were full of shit by any chance?
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2011, 09:12:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
You're just as bad.
No, I'm not. Just because I'm annoyed by idiots to the point of using very sharp language does not mean that I'm an equivalent idiot. It just means that I've just had it.
Yes, you are. You're a different kind of idiot, but an idiot nevertheless.
What kind of idiot am I? Also I would like to be classified as a different idiot then Marty.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Wrong.
Corporations are peeeeeople! People!
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Wrong.
Politically we may end up having to, but it's certainly possible without tax increases.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 10:20:40 PM
An Argentine? Well that's a ringing endorsement.
Never said it was. Just surprised me that out of all of them she picked him.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 09:14:55 PM
We don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Wrong.
Politically we may end up having to, but it's certainly possible without tax increases.
The problem is that there is far, far more support for not cutting spending than there is for not raising taxes. Even the people who want to maintain lower taxes also don't want to cut spending.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 10:24:00 PM
What kind of idiot am I? Also I would like to be classified as a different idiot then Marty.
You're both the kind of idiot that likes to spout off on the internet. :homestar:
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:52:04 PM
Even the people who want to maintain lower taxes also don't want to cut spending.
Ever heard of the Tea Party?
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 11:06:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:52:04 PM
Even the people who want to maintain lower taxes also don't want to cut spending.
Ever heard of the Tea Party?
Yeah, I found a poll that broke down what the Tea Party rank and file want to cut. Jack Shit. Not Social Security, not Medicare, not Defense. Just tiny little bullshit things. Posted it here a few times.
Poor Huntsman, forced to awkwardly explain why he didn't really mean we need to figure out what to do with millions of illegals in America.
Also, we are so gonna get a downgrade from S&P if a Republican wins.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 11:06:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:52:04 PM
Even the people who want to maintain lower taxes also don't want to cut spending.
Ever heard of the Tea Party?
They don't want to cut spending. They want to cloak a social conservative agenda behind fiscal conservatism with cuts to things like the NEA and associated science programs, and to rail against 'waste', 'corruption' and 'mismanagement'. If you actually tried to cut their social security, medicare or whatever, they'd go wild.
Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2011, 11:06:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:52:04 PM
Even the people who want to maintain lower taxes also don't want to cut spending.
Ever heard of the Tea Party?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calbuzz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FMad-Hatter-Tea-Party.jpg&hash=d32f1bf6893ba5d40b4de33000d2f47e3e1752fe)
So how did Ron Paul do?
Quote from: Grallon on August 11, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I've said it before - I'll repeat it again: The US will crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And that schizophrenic fixation about taxation (and state power behind it) among the American Populus is one of the most glaring of those contradictions; in fact I'd wager it's what will drive their republic under. Mark my word.
G.
Naw, the american public has a severe case of ADHD. The majority of the masses dont give a shit and are lazy. Sorry your prediction is stupid.
Bachmann said 'unconstitutional individual mandate' a lot. She's terrible.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 08:00:01 AM
So how did Ron Paul do?
not very well, his pro-iran stance probably didn't do him any good. He wasn't comfortable and he was nervous and didn't string together too many coherent sentences, probably trying to say too much in the time allowed.
The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple. His voice gets wavery, which makes him look like he has Parkinsons or something, he talks too fast, and trips over his words. That's why RP adherents in the audience still applaud, because they know his positions from having read them. If I only knew about Ron Paul from watching him, I would have written him off as a fringe candidate, as most people do. Reading his books are what helped me to understand his real message.
His point about Iran is not something that I believe most Americans have the logic skills to understand anymore - like how most people can't understand the difference between 'can' and 'should'. He's basically saying that you can't blame a country for wanting nuclear weapons, not that he's going to be jumping for joy if they do, or that he thinks they SHOULD, or that it would be a good thing. It gives that country "street cred" in the international community that you don't get if you don't have them. So why wouldn't they want them? Of course they do. And where do you draw the line about who gets to have them and who doesn't? And why should we, alone, carry the burden of making that decision? If Israel feels Iran is a threat, let them deal with Iran. If the global community feels Iran is a threat, let us all deal with Iran together. He's just arguing that embargoes don't really work as a means of conflict avoidance. And the US should not be acting solely in this, riding in like some B-movie cowboy to police the world. Those military engagements begun in the Bush years, in tandem with entitlement programs, are a big reason why we're in the financial position we're in. Ron Paul goes a step further to add that, if we didn't have fiat currency, we probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. When a nation has to sacrifice to pay for a war, it's far more likely to be either a) done quickly or b) not entered into at all, because only the most noble causes will inspire that kind of prolonged sacrifice.
I haven't thought out my position on this... so I'm not saying I agree or disagree. But this is his philosophy having read both of his "general platform" books.
Of the candidates, Ron Paul remains my favorite for his proven consistency, his economic foresight, limited government philosophy, and his passion for not involving the US in aggressive wars, but I don't think he's electable, and no one else on that stage interests me at all, so I will probably be going third party again this year if those are my choices. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple.
If by some miracle he is the GOP choice, he will never beat Obama with this critical weakness. Obamanation will crush him.
Besides, I dont see any of those GOP morons challenging the black messiah.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 12, 2011, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple.
If by some miracle he is the GOP choice, he will never beat Obama with this critical weakness. Obamanation will crush him.
To be honest none of these Republicans look likely to even trouble Obama very much.
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Those military engagements begun in the Bush years... are a big reason why we're in the financial position we're in.
$1.2 trillion over ten years isn't really significant.
QuoteRon Paul goes a step further to add that, if we didn't have fiat currency, we probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. When a nation has to sacrifice to pay for a war, it's far more likely to be either a) done quickly or b) not entered into at all, because only the most noble causes will inspire that kind of prolonged sacrifice.
So wait... He's putting forward a restricting freedom of action as a
positive for the gold standard? And people listen to this guy?
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 09:51:47 AM
So wait... He's putting forward a restricting freedom of action as a positive for the gold standard? And people listen to this guy?
In the sense that is forces the government to be more accountable and responsible. People who like Ron Paul do think that is a positive.
I don't see how tying your money supply to the output of a few mines in South Africa is making government accountable and responsible.
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2011, 09:49:18 AM
To be honest none of these Republicans look likely to even trouble Obama very much.
None of them can beat him. The economy can.
Quote from: Warspite on August 12, 2011, 10:36:13 AM
I don't see how tying your money supply to the output of a few mines in South Africa is making government accountable and responsible.
I think it is the idea that tying the money to something makes governments accountable.
It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 10:50:41 AM
It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.
As opposed to the anti-liberty crowd that thinks that people are too stupid to be allowed to do what they want, so a giant bureaucracy (set up by them, of course) is much better suited to deciding how people should live, and how their resources should be expended.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 10:50:41 AM
It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.
I am not entirely sure Fiat currency has been such an unqualified succes that only tards would question it.
That is not to say I think basing it on gold is a great idea.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
Ron Paul got the most applause. That has a psychological effect on certain types of people.
I'd support Ru Paul.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 10:56:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 10:50:41 AM
It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.
As opposed to the anti-liberty crowd that thinks that people are too stupid to be allowed to do what they want, so a giant bureaucracy (set up by them, of course) is much better suited to deciding how people should live, and how their resources should be expended.
Agreed, it doesn't tie that well to the anti-liberty crowd.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 09:51:47 AM
So wait... He's putting forward a restricting freedom of action as a positive for the gold standard? And people listen to this guy?
In the sense that is forces the government to be more accountable and responsible. People who like Ron Paul do think that is a positive.
I think "people who like Ron Paul" is the operative expression here. E.g. "people who like Ron Paul think the moon is made of cheese".
It is really bad for the country that these debates can be shown in foreign locations.
So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:24:37 AM
So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
Heh if only you knew.
George W Bush was a great Texas Governor...Perry has been a horrible one. Let that sink in for a second.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:24:37 AM
So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
I agree with that. I think Huntsman could be the most dangerous Republican candidate in 2012, because he can appeal to people who are not crazy, but aren't that enamored with Obama either. Unfortunately, that same quality will make it nigh on impossible for him to make any aground in the primaries.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:39:57 AM
I agree with that. I think Huntsman could be the most dangerous Republican candidate in 2012, because he can appeal to people who are not crazy, but aren't that enamored with Obama either. Unfortunately, that same quality will make it nigh on impossible for him to make any aground in the primaries.
Do you mean it when you say unfortunately?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2011, 10:38:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2011, 09:49:18 AM
To be honest none of these Republicans look likely to even trouble Obama very much.
None of them can beat him. The economy can.
Troof. When traders are jumping off buildings, the President doesn't get re-elected.
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple. His voice gets wavery, which makes him look like he has Parkinsons or something, he talks too fast, and trips over his words. That's why RP adherents in the audience still applaud, because they know his positions from having read them. If I only knew about Ron Paul from watching him, I would have written him off as a fringe candidate, as most people do. Reading his books are what helped me to understand his real message.
His point about Iran is not something that I believe most Americans have the logic skills to understand anymore - like how most people can't understand the difference between 'can' and 'should'. He's basically saying that you can't blame a country for wanting nuclear weapons, not that he's going to be jumping for joy if they do, or that he thinks they SHOULD, or that it would be a good thing. It gives that country "street cred" in the international community that you don't get if you don't have them. So why wouldn't they want them? Of course they do. And where do you draw the line about who gets to have them and who doesn't? And why should we, alone, carry the burden of making that decision? If Israel feels Iran is a threat, let them deal with Iran. If the global community feels Iran is a threat, let us all deal with Iran together. He's just arguing that embargoes don't really work as a means of conflict avoidance. And the US should not be acting solely in this, riding in like some B-movie cowboy to police the world. Those military engagements begun in the Bush years, in tandem with entitlement programs, are a big reason why we're in the financial position we're in. Ron Paul goes a step further to add that, if we didn't have fiat currency, we probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. When a nation has to sacrifice to pay for a war, it's far more likely to be either a) done quickly or b) not entered into at all, because only the most noble causes will inspire that kind of prolonged sacrifice.
I haven't thought out my position on this... so I'm not saying I agree or disagree. But this is his philosophy having read both of his "general platform" books.
Of the candidates, Ron Paul remains my favorite for his proven consistency, his economic foresight, limited government philosophy, and his passion for not involving the US in aggressive wars, but I don't think he's electable, and no one else on that stage interests me at all, so I will probably be going third party again this year if those are my choices. :rolleyes:
Remarkably countries went to war over stupid shit when there was a Gold Standard as well. People don't oppose the Ron Paul because they don't understand him. They understand him perfectly well. To suggest different is patronizing and delusional. People don't want to return to the Gold Standard anymore then the want to arm our military with muskets and lances.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:21:50 AM
It is really bad for the country that these debates can be shown in foreign locations.
+1
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2011, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:39:57 AM
I agree with that. I think Huntsman could be the most dangerous Republican candidate in 2012, because he can appeal to people who are not crazy, but aren't that enamored with Obama either. Unfortunately, that same quality will make it nigh on impossible for him to make any aground in the primaries.
Do you mean it when you say unfortunately?
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 10:56:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 10:50:41 AM
It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.
As opposed to the anti-liberty crowd that thinks that people are too stupid to be allowed to do what they want, so a giant bureaucracy (set up by them, of course) is much better suited to deciding how people should live, and how their resources should be expended.
"anti-liberty" crowd?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:24:37 AM
So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
I'm not too fond of Romney though he seems one of the more reasonable ones. But I don't really get a good sense that he stands for anything that strongly. Huntsman I don't know; it's very early and he hasn't been on the national stage very long. Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy. But again, it's early and we're just starting to see some of these guys/gals.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
True. Don't forget that there are a bunch of crazies every time. In our last round it wasn't just Hillary and Barack at the beginning. We had Kucinich and Gravel too.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
:yes:
Also, there is a decent chance that whoever is nominated is going to win.
A dynamic that doesn't seem to be getting much coverage after the debate is that a lot of these candidates may not be out to win, but instead to enhance their political fortunes/name recognition (and some out to win may be hedging their bets). I have to think that the Pizza Guy knows he is going to lose. Pawlenty may have chosen to go after Bachman rather than Romeny so that he doesn't burn bridges with someone who may be the next president.
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:56:03 AM
Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy.
Just curious what about him seems good?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
True. Don't forget that there are a bunch of crazies every time. In our last round it wasn't just Hillary and Barack at the beginning. We had Kucinich and Gravel too.
Yes, but as with many such comparisons, just because both Democrats and Republicans have it doesn't mean that the effect is the same on both.
Democrats have their fringe, but it has been really on the fringe as of late. The Republican fringe, on the other hand, is in charge now. Even the sane mainstream candidates are in effect put on the fringe, because they have to submit to the fringe ideology. It's with that dynamic that you get John McCain to say that taxes should never be raised, and that in fact lowering them would increase revenues.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
Huntsman is the biggest flake out of the group. If he got the nom I'd seriously think about voting for a 3rd party candidate.
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:24:37 AM
So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
I'm not too fond of Romney though he seems one of the more reasonable ones. But I don't really get a good sense that he stands for anything that strongly. Huntsman I don't know; it's very early and he hasn't been on the national stage very long. Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy. But again, it's early and we're just starting to see some of these guys/gals.
Perry is unacceptible to me on the grounds that he basically bankrupted Texas and then rather than devise a plan to solve Texas' problems he decided the solution was to Pray for Rain. Not only VooDoo Economics, but also VooDoo Religion, Politics, Defense, Transportation, Medicine ect.ect.
The fact that Perry is not the Guano Phosphate Rock Futures Candidate tells you alot about the state of the Republican Party.
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2011, 12:10:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.
Huntsman is the biggest flake out of the group. If he got the nom I'd seriously think about voting for a 3rd party candidate.
Exhibit A in support of what I just talked about. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
True. Don't forget that there are a bunch of crazies every time. In our last round it wasn't just Hillary and Barack at the beginning. We had Kucinich and Gravel too.
Yes, but as with many such comparisons, just because both Democrats and Republicans have it doesn't mean that the effect is the same on both.
Democrats have their fringe, but it has been really on the fringe as of late. The Republican fringe, on the other hand, is in charge now. Even the sane mainstream candidates are in effect put on the fringe, because they have to submit to the fringe ideology. It's with that dynamic that you get John McCain to say that taxes should never be raised, and that in fact lowering them would increase revenues.
Yep - the Dems went through this when they were all forced to comete with one another over who would abandon Iraq faster if elected.
But the current reality that no Republican can contemplate any kind of tax increase is going to make it impossible to vote for one.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 11:56:03 AM
Perry seems good but I'm hearing some negatives about him from Texas, that he isn't real knowledgeable on the economy.
Just curious what about him seems good?
From afar, the fact of strong job creation in Texas; the state budget under control, are two things that I can think of that are talked about with him. But what I don't know is how much is his doing.
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 12:23:12 PM
From afar, the fact of strong job creation in Texas; the state budget under control, are two things that I can think of that are talked about with him. But what I don't know is how much is his doing.
WTF? Um our state budget is royally screwed which is incredible given how strong the state's economy is. Perry's leadership is basically to ignore problems and put them off as long as possible and pray. Lots of praying and putting his foot in his mouth. And lots of bullying and political cronyism and corruption.
Our strong job creation is the result of long standing political philosophies in Texas that have been in existance for a long time.
Besides as I tried to explain to you guys before the Texas Governor has very little real power. It is mostly a job of convincing and unofficial power (which Perry largely abuses) and generally a terrible audition job for being a US President.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
People on your side love Huntsman because they know he's a wuss & would get mauled in the general election.
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2011, 12:53:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
People on your side love Huntsman because they know he's a wuss & would get mauled in the general election.
Why do you guys not love Obama then?
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 12:50:06 PMPerry's leadership is basically to ignore problems and put them off as long as possible and pray.
Sounds like the perfect credentials to go to Washington. :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2011, 12:53:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 11:54:16 AM
Yes. It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with. Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.
People on your side love Huntsman because they know he's a wuss & would get mauled in the general election.
No, people on our side love reason. You won't understand.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:20:38 PM
No, people on our side love reason. You won't understand.
Doubtful (http://reason.com/) :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 10:50:41 AM
It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.
I am not entirely sure Fiat currency has been such an unqualified succes that only tards would question it.
That is not to say I think basing it on gold is a great idea.
Actually, I believe I read in one of his books that even Ron Paul doesn't believe we should get back on the gold standard, though he thinks we should not have gone OFF the gold standard. Jumping from fiat currency to gold-backed currency would be too drastic a move to be feasible. The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value. His notion is just that it needs to be backed by something of value so that it cannot simply be invented out of thin air.
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:28:22 PM
The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value.
If there is one thing that is stable, it is the price of commodities.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 11:51:50 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple. His voice gets wavery, which makes him look like he has Parkinsons or something, he talks too fast, and trips over his words. That's why RP adherents in the audience still applaud, because they know his positions from having read them. If I only knew about Ron Paul from watching him, I would have written him off as a fringe candidate, as most people do. Reading his books are what helped me to understand his real message.
His point about Iran is not something that I believe most Americans have the logic skills to understand anymore - like how most people can't understand the difference between 'can' and 'should'. He's basically saying that you can't blame a country for wanting nuclear weapons, not that he's going to be jumping for joy if they do, or that he thinks they SHOULD, or that it would be a good thing. It gives that country "street cred" in the international community that you don't get if you don't have them. So why wouldn't they want them? Of course they do. And where do you draw the line about who gets to have them and who doesn't? And why should we, alone, carry the burden of making that decision? If Israel feels Iran is a threat, let them deal with Iran. If the global community feels Iran is a threat, let us all deal with Iran together. He's just arguing that embargoes don't really work as a means of conflict avoidance. And the US should not be acting solely in this, riding in like some B-movie cowboy to police the world. Those military engagements begun in the Bush years, in tandem with entitlement programs, are a big reason why we're in the financial position we're in. Ron Paul goes a step further to add that, if we didn't have fiat currency, we probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. When a nation has to sacrifice to pay for a war, it's far more likely to be either a) done quickly or b) not entered into at all, because only the most noble causes will inspire that kind of prolonged sacrifice.
I haven't thought out my position on this... so I'm not saying I agree or disagree. But this is his philosophy having read both of his "general platform" books.
Of the candidates, Ron Paul remains my favorite for his proven consistency, his economic foresight, limited government philosophy, and his passion for not involving the US in aggressive wars, but I don't think he's electable, and no one else on that stage interests me at all, so I will probably be going third party again this year if those are my choices. :rolleyes:
Remarkably countries went to war over stupid shit when there was a Gold Standard as well. People don't oppose the Ron Paul because they don't understand him. They understand him perfectly well. To suggest different is patronizing and delusional. People don't want to return to the Gold Standard anymore then the want to arm our military with muskets and lances.
No one is arguing that non-fiat currency wouldn't prevent misguided wars. But the truth is that the average American doesn't have to share in the sacrifice anymore, as long as we keep kicking the can down the road via further currency devaluation. The idea of a victory garden, or giving up silk stockings for parachutes, or goods rationing, is unheard of these days. When wars are "cheap" from the perspective of the average person, there's no real disincentive to getting involved in quagmires like Iraq.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:28:22 PM
The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value.
If there is one thing that is stable, it is the price of commodities.
Hence the BASKET OF. And commodities don't have to be precious metals, in case you weren't aware of the definition. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:33:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:28:22 PM
The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value.
If there is one thing that is stable, it is the price of commodities.
Hence the BASKET OF. And commodities don't have to be precious metals, in case you weren't aware of the definition. :rolleyes:
Non-metal commodities are not known for their stability either.
QuoteThe world cotton market is as volatile as only a commodity market can be.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradingeconomics.com%2Fcharts%2Fcotton.png&hash=aab09efbcbdbe19649a18cfa6b3a2a1ab0743994)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cotton
QE cotton
I am intrigued by this idea of a currency based on cotton.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
I am intrigued by this idea of a currency based on cotton.
Isn't the current one a cotton and linen based currency?
yes
That's why the price spiked like that. Bernanke was using up the world's supply making cash.
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:31:55 PM
No one is arguing that non-fiat currency wouldn't prevent misguided wars. But the truth is that the average American doesn't have to share in the sacrifice anymore, as long as we keep kicking the can down the road via further currency devaluation. The idea of a victory garden, or giving up silk stockings for parachutes, or goods rationing, is unheard of these days. When wars are "cheap" from the perspective of the average person, there's no real disincentive to getting involved in quagmires like Iraq.
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system. Arguments predicated on the idea that I (and everyone else), should suffer more due to decisions of others aren't going strengthen your case.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.
Indeed. That IS the current system.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 04:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.
Indeed. That IS the current system.
I didn't have to give up my veggies or silk stockings or any other good due to the Iraq War.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 04:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.
Indeed. That IS the current system.
That's every system.
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:31:55 PM
When wars are "cheap" from the perspective of the average person, there's no real disincentive to getting involved in quagmires like Iraq.
It may be "cheap" compared to WWII, but it was certainly expensive enough to serve as a disincentive. As hopefully it has done so in regards to Libya.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 12:50:06 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 12, 2011, 12:23:12 PM
From afar, the fact of strong job creation in Texas; the state budget under control, are two things that I can think of that are talked about with him. But what I don't know is how much is his doing.
WTF? Um our state budget is royally screwed which is incredible given how strong the state's economy is. Perry's leadership is basically to ignore problems and put them off as long as possible and pray. Lots of praying and putting his foot in his mouth. And lots of bullying and political cronyism and corruption.
Our strong job creation is the result of long standing political philosophies in Texas that have been in existance for a long time.
Besides as I tried to explain to you guys before the Texas Governor has very little real power. It is mostly a job of convincing and unofficial power (which Perry largely abuses) and generally a terrible audition job for being a US President.
Well, good to know from someone who lives there. I've had similar views when Mass pols run for national office, like Dukakis for President in the late 80s. As I said, I'm going from what is being reported, and so far it seems that Perry is being shown in a pretty good way. It's not my view, but what I'm hearing of. But the issues you talk of will, or should, come out as the campaign goes on and his opponents will bring this stuff out. As of now though, my thoughts on him are a lot more negative, as maybe he is a do nothing pol like you say, and damn, we don't need anymore of those on the national stage.
I can't help thinking that if Romney had defended the Massachusetts health care system with the phrase "Massachusetts has 10 democratic congressmen. The people of Massachusetts got the health care system that they wanted. blablabla Now the American people need to get the Health Care system that they want and deserve." He would have safely weasled out the problem and gone up in my estimation while establishing that any bleeding heart policy he might have had while in Massachusetts is irrelevant, because Massachusetts is populated with MoveOnIstas and radical liberal god hating atheists.
But he didn't...
You're counting on Republican voters to be reasonable there Viking. In reality they would have chided him anyway, for having failed to immolate himself in a holy crusade against the death panels. No compromise!
New Yorker article on Bachmann. Some interesting bits in there: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 06:26:35 PM
You're counting on Republican voters to be reasonable there Viking. In reality they would have chided him anyway, for having failed to immolate himself in a holy crusade against the death panels. No compromise!
This is why Obama will win.
Texan governor - Perry, or something - seems to have positive reviews from the BBC here today. He looks presidential too.
Has Romney's heckler zerg rush at the Iowa state fair already been mentioned somewhere?
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 12, 2011, 07:00:16 PM
Texan governor - Perry, or something - seems to have positive reviews from the BBC here today. He looks presidential too.
Do people seriously think a Shrub lackey is going to win against Obama? Sure, Romney has a shot, but Perry was Bush's Lt. Governor for christ's sake.
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 12, 2011, 07:00:16 PM
Texan governor - Perry, or something - seems to have positive reviews from the BBC here today. He looks presidential too.
He looks like a soap opera star to me.
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2011, 06:21:49 PM
I can't help thinking that if Romney had defended the Massachusetts health care system with the phrase "Massachusetts has 10 democratic congressmen. The people of Massachusetts got the health care system that they wanted. blablabla Now the American people need to get the Health Care system that they want and deserve." He would have safely weasled out the problem and gone up in my estimation while establishing that any bleeding heart policy he might have had while in Massachusetts is irrelevant, because Massachusetts is populated with MoveOnIstas and radical liberal god hating atheists.
But he didn't...
He definitely has a health care problem for the Republican primary, and what you wrote is one way to try to diffuse it, but...
Wouldn't he be announcing that he rolled over and passed a bad bill? The attacks then would be that he was confronted with an early version of Obamacare and rather than having the courage to fight the moveonistas, he meekly signed it into law. Then there would be the problem that he took credit for it and ran on it during the 2008 election.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 09:21:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2011, 06:21:49 PM
I can't help thinking that if Romney had defended the Massachusetts health care system with the phrase "Massachusetts has 10 democratic congressmen. The people of Massachusetts got the health care system that they wanted. blablabla Now the American people need to get the Health Care system that they want and deserve." He would have safely weasled out the problem and gone up in my estimation while establishing that any bleeding heart policy he might have had while in Massachusetts is irrelevant, because Massachusetts is populated with MoveOnIstas and radical liberal god hating atheists.
But he didn't...
He definitely has a health care problem for the Republican primary, and what you wrote is one way to try to diffuse it, but...
Wouldn't he be announcing that he rolled over and passed a bad bill? The attacks then would be that he was confronted with an early version of Obamacare and rather than having the courage to fight the moveonistas, he meekly signed it into law. Then there would be the problem that he took credit for it and ran on it during the 2008 election.
Yes, Obama was brilliant in adopting a republican centrist health care reform plan rather than going for a democratic one. Basically it either means easy passage or removing any centrist republicans from any future presidential race in 2012.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 04:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.
Indeed. That IS the current system.
I didn't have to give up my veggies or silk stockings or any other good due to the Iraq War.
Yeah, we put Iraq on the credit card. :(
The massive oil revenues from occupied Iraq have paid for the war many times over. Why else would you have invaded?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 04:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.
Indeed. That IS the current system.
I didn't have to give up my veggies or silk stockings or any other good due to the Iraq War.
Yeah, we put Iraq on the credit card. :(
I find this an improvement to becoming impoverished.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Princesca on August 12, 2011, 02:31:55 PM
No one is arguing that non-fiat currency wouldn't prevent misguided wars. But the truth is that the average American doesn't have to share in the sacrifice anymore, as long as we keep kicking the can down the road via further currency devaluation. The idea of a victory garden, or giving up silk stockings for parachutes, or goods rationing, is unheard of these days. When wars are "cheap" from the perspective of the average person, there's no real disincentive to getting involved in quagmires like Iraq.
The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system. Arguments predicated on the idea that I (and everyone else), should suffer more due to decisions of others aren't going strengthen your case.
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation, or at the very least, other major economic troubles continuing at least into 2013. The idea with having non-fiat currency is that people are not likely to tolerate aggressive wars that are not to serve a truly noble purpose. In short, it wouldn't keep us out of WWII, but it would have probably kept us out of Iraq, or if not kept us out, it would have vastly shortened our engagement. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
People don't have any foresight when it comes to our economic problems anymore. Just because you aren't paying for something NOW doesn't mean you won't pay, exponentially, down the road, in "hidden" ways. Why do you think the government is so keen on inflating the money supply? We get to go to wars we shouldn't be in, and have programs we can't afford that increase the authority and scope of government, while the average taxpayer just says 'Wow, those greedy companies keep raising prices at the grocery store!' They don't realize that the Fed's quantitative easing can cause inflation, that all these things are connected in the broader market.
Personally, I think Rick Perry looks like that dude that played Zarek in the new Battlestar and Starbuck in the old one:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maggiesnotebook.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FRick_Perry_351.jpg&hash=aa23f68716f3d0781497347275f824bf4b092aa4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Few%2Fdynamic%2Fimgs%2F090311%2FRichard-Hatch-Tom-Zarek_l.jpg&hash=9e5820e7c1fd04d596741b0ca3a52d50481038b8)
Quote from: Fate on August 12, 2011, 08:56:31 PM
Do people seriously think a Shrub lackey is going to win against Obama? Sure, Romney has a shot, but Perry was Bush's Lt. Governor for christ's sake.
I do not know what the political mood in the USA is, though Perry seems to be viewed positively by the BBC who said he has "the common touch" and is "familiar with getting budgets under control and growing the economy", etc. So much for BBC impartiality, ay?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2011, 09:00:32 PM
He looks like a soap opera star to me.
Ronald Reagan was also an actor. ;)
Are you kidding, he looks more like Bush than Bush did from Josh Brolin's W.
Last thing we need is another Texas politician.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2011, 06:33:04 AM
Are you kidding, he looks more like Bush than Bush did from Josh Brolin's W.
Last thing we need is another Texas politician.
OH NO U DIDNT
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wellesley.edu%2FPolisci%2Fwj%2FVietimages%2FAudio%2F0%2C1020%2C249029%2C00.jpg&hash=4f332a53ed430bcfb5b67560bbd7c8ec046c9d9e)
Consider yourself added to Zombie LBJ's shitlist.
Evidently, the WH thinks Perry is a threat, because Axelrod came out yesterday against him, guns blazing, even though he hadn't formally declared. He said that Perry is just benefiting from circumstances he had no control over, which sounded like a fairly childish line of argument to me.
The two main things I'd like to see in a POTUS are a commitment to fiscal discipline and someone who can inspire people through these tough times. I would have thought Obama would be good at the latter, given his rousing speeches during the campaign, but for some reason he doesn't seem willing or able to employ that gift now that he's in office. I think it may be because he's very good (having been a community organizer) at riling people up with speech, but not so good at making people feel good with speech. His whole career as a community organizer (at which he apparently excelled) was built on discord. How anyone thought he'd be a unifying presence in government is beyond me. The same qualities of person required to bring people's attention to a problem are not usually the qualities needed to FIX a problem.
Also having a POTUS who is not a crazy evangelical religious nut would also be nice. Cal will say 'There's no way those people are really religious - it's just posturing' but Rick Perry's "Prayerapalooza" and Michele Bachmann's 'I'm one step away from being a snake handler' worry me :P Not too keen on Mormons either, but at least they do good disaster preparedness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2011, 06:33:04 AM
Are you kidding, he looks more like Bush than Bush did from Josh Brolin's W.
Last thing we need is another Texas politician.
He talks like W too. I listened to a speech last night to see what he was like, and I think that he's going to remind people way too much of GWB.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:39:24 AM
Consider yourself added to Zombie LBJ's shitlist.
LBJ doesn't count, all his principal work was on the national level.
A politician that happens to be from Texas isn't the same as a Texas politician.
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:39:36 AMAlso having a POTUS who is not a crazy evangelical religious nut would also be nice. Cal will say 'There's no way those people are really religious - it's just posturing' but Rick Perry's "Prayerapalooza" and Michele Bachmann's 'I'm one step away from being a snake handler' worry me :P Not too keen on Mormons either, but at least they do good disaster preparedness.
Mormons are beyond creepy. At least you know where Baptist fundies are coming from; Mormonism is simply a cult with no transparency. That makes them more dangerous and more sinister than any churchifying Protestant goofball.
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:17:39 AM
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation, or at the very least, other major economic troubles continuing at least into 2013. The idea with having non-fiat currency is that people are not likely to tolerate aggressive wars that are not to serve a truly noble purpose. In short, it wouldn't keep us out of WWII, but it would have probably kept us out of Iraq, or if not kept us out, it would have vastly shortened our engagement. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
People don't have any foresight when it comes to our economic problems anymore. Just because you aren't paying for something NOW doesn't mean you won't pay, exponentially, down the road, in "hidden" ways. Why do you think the government is so keen on inflating the money supply? We get to go to wars we shouldn't be in, and have programs we can't afford that increase the authority and scope of government, while the average taxpayer just says 'Wow, those greedy companies keep raising prices at the grocery store!' They don't realize that the Fed's quantitative easing can cause inflation, that all these things are connected in the broader market.
These are absurd arguments. I see no reason to believe that ancient monetary practices would have kept the US out of Iraq. Take a look at British military history in the 19th century. They were in constant petty wars, some of which they lost. What I am seeing is an argument to adopt a less flexible and effective monetary system so that when government does something stupid I should suffer more. Presumably to encourage me not to vote for people like Bush in the future. I didn't vote for him to begin with, so I don't need additional suffering to convince me it was a bad idea. A system that breaks down so I have to periodically plant "Victory Gardens", is not better then a system that does not periodically break down.
Governments didn't adopt fiat currency out of some conspiracy to incontinence you, but because it was superior to the old system which was incapable of financing a modern government and would periodically cause deflation and massive instability. One or two percent inflation per year is far, far superior to deflation. Unless I'm very wealthy or a bank (which I am neither).
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:17:39 AM
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation,
Have we had inflation the past year?
I thought we wanted inflation right now? :huh:
Quote from: Fate on August 13, 2011, 09:05:51 AM
I thought we wanted inflation right now? :huh:
organize 10,000% inflation over the next 20 years and you reduce the debt by a factor of 100 and permanently screw with america's credit worthyness.... or you drive interest rates up above 15%....
Basically follow Iceland's currency policy...
Quote from: Faeelin on August 13, 2011, 08:44:31 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:17:39 AM
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation,
Have we had inflation the past year?
Probably. We have inflation every year. It's not really a bad thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2011, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 13, 2011, 08:44:31 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:17:39 AM
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation,
Have we had inflation the past year?
Probably. We have inflation every year. It's not really a bad thing.
I get that, but usually when somebody mentions inflation in this context they mean the stagflation of the 1970s, which I don't think we have had.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 09:08:02 AM
Quote from: Fate on August 13, 2011, 09:05:51 AM
I thought we wanted inflation right now? :huh:
organize 10,000% inflation over the next 20 years and you reduce the debt by a factor of 100 and permanently screw with america's credit worthyness.... or you drive interest rates up above 15%....
Basically follow Iceland's currency policy...
10,000% seems a bit excessive. I've heard Ivy talking heads calling for 4-6%. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2011, 07:30:29 AM
Governments didn't adopt fiat currency out of some conspiracy to incontinence you...
Heh.
Quote from: Fate on August 13, 2011, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 09:08:02 AM
Quote from: Fate on August 13, 2011, 09:05:51 AM
I thought we wanted inflation right now? :huh:
organize 10,000% inflation over the next 20 years and you reduce the debt by a factor of 100 and permanently screw with america's credit worthyness.... or you drive interest rates up above 15%....
Basically follow Iceland's currency policy...
10,000% seems a bit excessive. I've heard Ivy talking heads calling for 4-6%. :hmm:
10,000% over 20 years is 25% per year.
6% per year over 20 years is 320% - is that what you want?
Who says we need it for 20 years?
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:17:39 AM
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation, or at the very least, other major economic troubles continuing at least into 2013. The idea with having non-fiat currency is that people are not likely to tolerate aggressive wars that are not to serve a truly noble purpose. In short, it wouldn't keep us out of WWII, but it would have probably kept us out of Iraq, or if not kept us out, it would have vastly shortened our engagement. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Because it's better for a government to have more freedom of action, rather than less.
Perry officially in. The guy always gives me slime vibes when I see him on some shows. :x
We're glad to get rid of him, if only until November of 2012. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 12:50:06 PM
Perry's leadership is basically to ignore problems and put them off as long as possible
So he's sort of a white version of Obama, then. Hmm. Maybe he *can* win.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2011, 07:30:29 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 13, 2011, 06:17:39 AM
The government will still penalize you financially when they make mistakes. Look at the situation we're in now. The value of currency dropping, the prospect of inflation, or at the very least, other major economic troubles continuing at least into 2013. The idea with having non-fiat currency is that people are not likely to tolerate aggressive wars that are not to serve a truly noble purpose. In short, it wouldn't keep us out of WWII, but it would have probably kept us out of Iraq, or if not kept us out, it would have vastly shortened our engagement. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
People don't have any foresight when it comes to our economic problems anymore. Just because you aren't paying for something NOW doesn't mean you won't pay, exponentially, down the road, in "hidden" ways. Why do you think the government is so keen on inflating the money supply? We get to go to wars we shouldn't be in, and have programs we can't afford that increase the authority and scope of government, while the average taxpayer just says 'Wow, those greedy companies keep raising prices at the grocery store!' They don't realize that the Fed's quantitative easing can cause inflation, that all these things are connected in the broader market.
These are absurd arguments.
While I don't necessarily agree with all of Raz's arguments, I do have to agree with the basic sentiment expressed above. A good argument for an economic policy would be its positive economic benefits, not its foreign policy benefits. Especially when those claimed foreign policy benefits seem unlikely.
Quote from: Kleves on August 13, 2011, 09:37:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2011, 07:30:29 AM
Governments didn't adopt fiat currency out of some conspiracy to incontinence you...
Heh.
Actually, I did see that after I posted it, but didn't edit it, as I also found it amusing.
Bachmann won the straw poll. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll)
And Kleves moves one step closer to joining the party of treason. :(
Quote from: Kleves on August 13, 2011, 06:10:17 PM
Bachmann won the straw poll. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll)
And Kleves moves one step closer to joining the party of treason. :(
Ya can't spell 'treason' without 'reason'. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2011, 01:35:26 PM
Perry officially in. The guy always gives me slime vibes when I see him on some shows. :x
A poor man's George W. Bush.
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Creationism
- Lack of fiscal good sense
- Pro Life
- Anti Gay
- Against Planned Parenthood
- Believes Israel has a divine right to exist
- Against the HPV vaccine
- At least 234 executions (I'm not against the death penalty, I'm just against diluting it's effect by killing the innocent and the guilty guilty of lesser crimes)
- Global Warming denier
All of course in addition to the 1st Amendment smashing Prayrepalooza where he admitted that he was not competent to solve Texas' problems, so he tries praying and before the results can be tested he decides that not being able to solve Texas' problems makes him competent to solve America's problems.
I'm sorry, but this guy is a full scale red flag for all europeans including virulent atlanticists (that means pro-america) like myself.
This cannot last though right? Bachmann and Paul scoring a combined 57% of the vote? Please tell me the average republican has more sense than sending either of those two looney tunes to face Obama.
Well, Perry might be indispensable now. Consider that the double-dip recession and his inability to inspire hope or produce change have ended Obama's chance of reelection. If the GOP nominates Bachmann or Paul, a pall of lunacy will descend upon America that will bring to life all of the MoveOntards worst nightmares about the Bush years (that never came to pass because Bush wasn't retarded or crazy). If it takes Perry to prevent those imbeciles from gaining power, so be it.
The only other option is that a Democrat beats Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Quotebut this guy is a full scale red flag for all europeans
That is all I need to vote for him.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
I'm sorry, but this guy is a full scale red flag for all europeans
Doesn't that work in his favour? If the Europeans like a guy, that probably means he's an incompetent boob.
The looney lefty yooro will hate all republicans, but atlanticists like myself will hate this guy as well... basically, those of us who were willing to give "W" a chance 11 years ago will not be willing to give this guy a chance at all. Expect not having allies for the period of a Perry or Bachman presidency.
Definitely got my vote then.
Gonna have to see how Perry polls vs. Obama, but I may switch from Romney to him. If Rudy seems likely to be his VP, then I'd pretty much support him by default.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:58:56 PM
The looney lefty yooro will hate all republicans, but atlanticists like myself will hate this guy as well... basically, those of us who were willing to give "W" a chance 11 years ago will not be willing to give this guy a chance at all. Expect not having allies for the period of a Perry or Bachman presidency.
Who would even notice?
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2011, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:58:56 PM
The looney lefty yooro will hate all republicans, but atlanticists like myself will hate this guy as well... basically, those of us who were willing to give "W" a chance 11 years ago will not be willing to give this guy a chance at all. Expect not having allies for the period of a Perry or Bachman presidency.
Who would even notice?
Being Canadian you would notice.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:58:56 PM
The looney lefty yooro will hate all republicans, but atlanticists like myself will hate this guy as well... basically, those of us who were willing to give "W" a chance 11 years ago will not be willing to give this guy a chance at all. Expect not having allies for the period of a Perry or Bachman presidency.
I count on having zero Euro allies with any Republican president in office. You guys will assume the 'worst' of anyone with an R next to his name
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 07:03:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2011, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:58:56 PM
The looney lefty yooro will hate all republicans, but atlanticists like myself will hate this guy as well... basically, those of us who were willing to give "W" a chance 11 years ago will not be willing to give this guy a chance at all. Expect not having allies for the period of a Perry or Bachman presidency.
Who would even notice?
Being Canadian you would notice.
Why? Canada's government is liable to be friendly to the US whether it's Obama, Perry or even one of the crazies.
Rick Perry is an idiot that panders to the most idiotic tendencies in the loony right. For the sake of your own country don't let a loon like Perry become president. I'm not saying vote Obama, I'm saying don't vote Batshit.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 07:07:10 PM
Rick Perry is an idiot that panders to the most idiotic tendencies in the loony right. For the sake of your own country don't let a loon like Perry become president. I'm not saying vote Obama, I'm saying don't vote Batshit.
If the choice is between Perry and Bachmann, then you have to choose Perry.
Quote from: Cecil on August 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
This cannot last though right? Bachmann and Paul scoring a combined 57% of the vote? Please tell me the average republican has more sense than sending either of those two looney tunes to face Obama.
The straw poll is a totally manufactured event. To cast a vote you have to travel across the state to the polling site and you have to pay ($30?). So what it's really measuring is the financial ability of each candidate to pay for free bus rides and polling tickets, as well as the hard-core groupie support.
That being said Iowa Republicans are a pretty wacky bunch so a Bachmann victory in the caucus (which is a lot more real than the straw poll but still kind of fake) is not out of the question.
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2011, 07:04:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:58:56 PM
The looney lefty yooro will hate all republicans, but atlanticists like myself will hate this guy as well... basically, those of us who were willing to give "W" a chance 11 years ago will not be willing to give this guy a chance at all. Expect not having allies for the period of a Perry or Bachman presidency.
I count on having zero Euro allies with any Republican president in office. You guys will assume the 'worst' of anyone with an R next to his name
No we do not. The looney left in Europe will hate anybody with an R, but the sensible majority will deal with whatever president as is. Bachman, Perry, Paul, Palin and other Batshit candidates will be treated like the loons they are. Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush were both much more popular in Europe than they were in the USA.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 07:14:31 PM
Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush were both much more popular in Europe than they were in the USA.
Given that Europe was completely dependent on Eisenhower and Bush I for their freedom and economic well-being, that's not especially surprising.
Quote from: Cecil on August 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
This cannot last though right? Bachmann and Paul scoring a combined 57% of the vote? Please tell me the average republican has more sense than sending either of those two looney tunes to face Obama.
Straw polls are meaningless. Ron Paul used to sweep them last time around.
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2011, 07:01:21 PM
Gonna have to see how Perry polls vs. Obama, but I may switch from Romney to him. If Rudy seems likely to be his VP, then I'd pretty much support him by default.
You are an immaculate judge of character. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2011, 07:01:21 PM
Gonna have to see how Perry polls vs. Obama, but I may switch from Romney to him. If Rudy seems likely to be his VP, then I'd pretty much support him by default.
You are a flawless judge of character. :lol:
Oh please, tell us once more how horrible Giuliani is :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Creationism
- Lack of fiscal good sense
- Pro Life
- Anti Gay
- Against Planned Parenthood
- Believes Israel has a divine right to exist
- Against the HPV vaccine
- At least 234 executions (I'm not against the death penalty, I'm just against diluting it's effect by killing the innocent and the guilty guilty of lesser crimes)
- Global Warming denier
Sounds like a Republican.
Quote from: Kleves on August 13, 2011, 06:10:17 PM
Bachmann won the straw poll. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/13/7366544-bachmann-wins-ames-straw-poll)
And Kleves moves one step closer to joining the party of treason. :(
Don't let me get in your way, but wtf? Straw polls in Iowa in August don't mean anything. If you could hang with the republicans when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire(!) primary, this should bother you much.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 12:17:21 PMYep - the Dems went through this when they were all forced to comete with one another over who would abandon Iraq faster if elected.
But the current reality that no Republican can contemplate any kind of tax increase is going to make it impossible to vote for one.
The Democrats went through this and nominated Kerry. Tell me which Republican candidate isn't to the issue of the debt* what Kucinich was to the war? They all, from what I can tell, are way out beyond Coburn and unwilling to even countenance something like Bowles-Simpson.
This is a party like Labour in the 80s. And it's sad that there's now a number of pragmatic ex-Governor's basically saying 'that sounds nice in practice but will it work in theory' while pandering to the Derek Hatton's of the right.
*Because as far as I can see the idea that you can start to pay off the debt or seriously balance the budget without some form of tax reform simply isn't credible.
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2011, 07:26:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2011, 07:01:21 PM
Gonna have to see how Perry polls vs. Obama, but I may switch from Romney to him. If Rudy seems likely to be his VP, then I'd pretty much support him by default.
You are a flawless judge of character. :lol:
Oh please, tell us once more how horrible Giuliani is :rolleyes:
Nah. To get you to not vote for Giuliani, I would have to convince you what a decent and reasonable human being he is. I'm not that good of a liar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2011, 07:09:10 PM
Quote from: Cecil on August 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
This cannot last though right? Bachmann and Paul scoring a combined 57% of the vote? Please tell me the average republican has more sense than sending either of those two looney tunes to face Obama.
The straw poll is a totally manufactured event. To cast a vote you have to travel across the state to the polling site and you have to pay ($30?). So what it's really measuring is the financial ability of each candidate to pay for free bus rides and polling tickets, as well as the hard-core groupie support.
That being said Iowa Republicans are a pretty wacky bunch so a Bachmann victory in the caucus (which is a lot more real than the straw poll but still kind of fake) is not out of the question.
Yeah, the Straw Poll is silly. Utterly useless. I mean, Ron Paul always does well. He doesn't have that much support but his supporters are fanatical.
Hey, Yi. I read about how your state's Republican party has endorsed the reintroduction of the "original" 13th amendment.
QuoteIf there is an aspect of the human condition that is unaddressed by the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa, adopted last month at the state convention in Des Moines, you'd have to look awfully hard to find it. Its 387 enumerated planks and principles range widely over politics, culture, and economics, from sweeping statements of belief ("America is good") to the fine nuances of agricultural policy ("We support the definition of manure as natural fertilizer") and touching on the mythical "North American Union" (against) and the gold standard (for). Even so, it's a little startling to come upon section 7.19, which calls for "the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th amendment in today's Constitution." Since the existing 13th Amendment bans slavery, while the "original" one was about something else entirely, the wording might give the impression that Iowa Republicans wish to reverse emancipation, which is not at all the case, according to state GOP Communications Director Danielle Plogmann. Like many aspects of Republican politics this year, it's actually about embarrassing President Obama. But you have to wonder whether the delegates knew what they were getting into. In making common cause with "Thirteenthers," as those who seek to restore the long-lost amendment are known, the party has ventured beyond the far fringes of conspiracy theory, into a mysterious lost land without lawyers or taxes. Maybe they knew what they were doing after all.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/27/why-some-republicans-want-to-restore-the-13th-amendment.html
:lol:
Republicans are such kooks.
Quote from: Cecil on August 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
This cannot last though right? Bachmann and Paul scoring a combined 57% of the vote? Please tell me the average republican has more sense than sending either of those two looney tunes to face Obama.
I can't vouch for the sense of the average republican, but this was a straw poll! The people there either had their way paid by a campaign or are political psychos. This meant nothing, except that Pawlenty's campaign sucks (he actually blew a bunch of money trying to win, and still came in third).
Nonamericans need to stop following the Republican primary. Nothing good is going to come from it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2011, 07:09:10 PM
Quote from: Cecil on August 13, 2011, 06:46:00 PM
This cannot last though right? Bachmann and Paul scoring a combined 57% of the vote? Please tell me the average republican has more sense than sending either of those two looney tunes to face Obama.
The straw poll is a totally manufactured event. To cast a vote you have to travel across the state to the polling site and you have to pay ($30?).
Actually, you have to attend a fundraising event, so it's not like you're just dropping $30 on the vote. Punch was served!
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Against the HPV vaccine
What? Perry enacted an executive order that
forced all 6th grade girls in Texas to get the HPV vaccine before the entire state rebelled against him.e
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/06/6hpv.html
So how many votes did Rick Parry get?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Actually, you have to attend a fundraising event, so it's not like you're just dropping $30 on the vote. Punch was served!
I'm not sure I see the point of selectively quoting my post then rephrasing the part you omitted. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2011, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Actually, you have to attend a fundraising event, so it's not like you're just dropping $30 on the vote. Punch was served!
I'm not sure I see the point of selectively quoting my post then rephrasing the part you omitted. :hmm:
I'm not sure I see the point of you objecting to it for whatever Yi reason you may have. :hmm:
Watching these interviews, Ive noticed that Newt is the candidate furthest to the left. Odd.
Quote from: sbr on August 13, 2011, 08:20:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Against the HPV vaccine
What? Perry enacted an executive order that forced all 6th grade girls in Texas to get the HPV vaccine before the entire state rebelled against him.e
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/06/6hpv.html
Yeah. That was one of the few things he tried to do that I supported.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2011, 08:50:33 PM
Watching these interviews, Ive noticed that Newt is the candidate furthest to the left. Odd.
Just goes to show you exactly how clinically insane the Republican Party has gone. When Newt Gingrich is your leftie, you've got major sanity issues.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2011, 08:50:33 PM
Watching these interviews, Ive noticed that Newt is the candidate furthest to the left. Odd.
In a political sense or a spatial sense?
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Creationism
- Lack of fiscal good sense
- Pro Life
- Anti Gay
- Against Planned Parenthood
- Believes Israel has a divine right to exist
- Against the HPV vaccine
- At least 234 executions (I'm not against the death penalty, I'm just against diluting it's effect by killing the innocent and the guilty guilty of lesser crimes)
- Global Warming denier
All of course in addition to the 1st Amendment smashing Prayrepalooza where he admitted that he was not competent to solve Texas' problems, so he tries praying and before the results can be tested he decides that not being able to solve Texas' problems makes him competent to solve America's problems.
I'm sorry, but this guy is a full scale red flag for all non-insane human beings.
FYP.
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Obviously they don't believe that. They said it because they had to. If they didn't they'd have no hope of winning the primary.
So you're saying Republican primary voters are the idiots? :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 14, 2011, 01:05:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 08:43:44 PM
Moderator: When you were governor you raised taxes and balanced your budget, doesn't this mean that raising taxes might be used to balance the budget?
Pawlenty/Romney: No
idiots..... reality doesn't seem to impact either of those idiots
Obviously they don't believe that. They said it because they had to. If they didn't they'd have no hope of winning the primary.
The tax questions were traps. Anyone who answered yes to them would've been out of the primary the next day.
Quote from: derspiess on August 14, 2011, 01:38:08 AM
The tax questions were traps. Anyone who answered yes to them would've been out of the primary the next day.
Disagree. An example of a pure trap question was Chris Matthews asking last round's GOP primary field if they would hire Karl Rove. The candidates were given the choice between pissing off the majority of the electorate or throwing the Bush adminstration under the bus. There were no policy implications whatsoever.
Raising taxes to get the deficit under control was a legitimate policy question. There's a lot of ways they could have handled it. Change the subject to out of control spending (i.e. duck the question). Say deficit reduction is so important everything has to be on the table. Give a vague answer that leaves wiggle room. Or commit to read my lips.
Running to the fringe in the primary then trying to reposition to the middle in the general is the candidate's job, not the debate moderator's.
Is there anyone actually sane who stands a good chance of winning Republican primaries?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2011, 07:37:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Creationism
- Lack of fiscal good sense
- Pro Life
- Anti Gay
- Against Planned Parenthood
- Believes Israel has a divine right to exist
- Against the HPV vaccine
- At least 234 executions (I'm not against the death penalty, I'm just against diluting it's effect by killing the innocent and the guilty guilty of lesser crimes)
- Global Warming denier
Sounds like a Republican.
Not sure if you are being facetious, but you can hold a "Republican" stance on these issues but still have vastly different views.
Take "anti-gay" for example. You could be opposed to gay marriage, but take a view like Rudy that it is ultimately not the federal government's job to legislate people's personal lives. You can be like Bush and support DOMA. Or you can be like Perry and think that Lawrence vs. Texas was a mistake.
Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2011, 03:43:43 AMIs there anyone actually sane who stands a good chance of winning Republican primaries?
Not since 1976.
Sources are saying that T-Paw is gonzo. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/14/pawlenty/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/14/pawlenty/index.html)
Isn't he the highest-placed non-lunatic, or does he figure that Perry messes that up for him?
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 09:27:46 AM
Isn't he the highest-placed non-lunatic, or does he figure that Perry messes that up for him?
Well since the looneys are at the wheel in the GOP at the moment he could just figure that 2016 is a bigger chance for him.
Quote from: Viking on August 13, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Perry is in, it's official. Now the man who called for secession in April 2009 is going for President. After looking over his wiki article, he manages to hit the wrong button on all issues.
- Creationism
- Lack of fiscal good sense
- Pro Life
- Anti Gay
- Against Planned Parenthood
- Believes Israel has a divine right to exist
- Against the HPV vaccine
- At least 234 executions (I'm not against the death penalty, I'm just against diluting it's effect by killing the innocent and the guilty guilty of lesser crimes)
- Global Warming denier
All of course in addition to the 1st Amendment smashing Prayrepalooza where he admitted that he was not competent to solve Texas' problems, so he tries praying and before the results can be tested he decides that not being able to solve Texas' problems makes him competent to solve America's problems.
I'm sorry, but this guy is a full scale red flag for all non-insane human beings.
That was then. Doesnt mean anything now. He'll tell people waht the want to hear.
Quote from: Princesca on August 14, 2011, 09:05:08 AM
Sources are saying that T-Paw is gonzo. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/14/pawlenty/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/14/pawlenty/index.html)
I was expecting him to be a Muppet.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 09:27:46 AM
Isn't he the highest-placed non-lunatic, or does he figure that Perry messes that up for him?
It's not so much that Perry or anyone else messes things up, it's that waaaaay too much emphasis is placed on way too early straw polls, caucuses, and primaries.
I heard the other day the all the dudes in the US that make over 10 millions of taxable income a year, put all together, make around 250 billions.
Even if you were to tax 100% it doens't seem to be that much money.
So, how much money make the people that makes ove a million a year?
About the GOP debate, they all sound better than Obama.
My problem with them is when they start talking religious stuff that should be personal.
However, any of them would get my vote against Obama.
Obama doesn't know jack about economy, makes ideological decissions regardless of the consecuences, and have sorruonded himself with yes-men.
Besides, I am tired of Obama blaming everything that happens on others.
He is like a fucking arab. He doesnt make mistakes and everything that goes wrong is due to external forces.
Replace in an islamotard's speech the great and the little satans with the tea party, and you have Obama.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:28:23 PM
About the GOP debate, they all sound better than Obama.
My problem with them is when they start talking religious stuff that should be personal.
However, any of them would get my vote against Obama.
Obama doesn't know jack about economy, makes ideological decissions regardless of the consecuences, and have sorruonded himself with yes-men.
Besides, I am tired of Obama blaming everything that happens on others.
He is like a fucking arab. He doesnt make mistakes and everything that goes wrong is due to external forces.
Replace in an islamotard's speech the great and the little satans with the tea party, and you have Obama.
Can you watch this analysis by Fareed Zakaria
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/08/13/gps.fareeds.take.compromise.cnn?iref=allsearch
and comment please.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:28:23 PM
About the GOP debate, they all sound better than Obama.
My problem with them is when they start talking religious stuff that should be personal.
However, any of them would get my vote against Obama.
Obama doesn't know jack about economy, makes ideological decissions regardless of the consecuences, and have sorruonded himself with yes-men.
Besides, I am tired of Obama blaming everything that happens on others.
He is like a fucking arab. He doesnt make mistakes and everything that goes wrong is due to external forces.
Replace in an islamotard's speech the great and the little satans with the tea party, and you have Obama.
Another revealing insight into the mind of an average Republican voter. Well, not quite average, and there really isn't a lot of mind to look into, it's just a figure of speech.
I wonder how Siege knows Obama doesn't know jack about the economy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 02:50:07 PM
I wonder how Siege knows Obama doesn't know jack about the economy.
Because Rush says so.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 02:50:07 PM
I wonder how Siege knows Obama doesn't know jack about the economy.
Because Rush says so.
Ask a stupid question...
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 03:21:29 PM
Ask a stupid question...
Ok. Were you serious when you said you got fired a couple times for beating your co-workers?
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 02:50:07 PM
I wonder how Siege knows Obama doesn't know jack about the economy.
Because Rush says so.
You siegy, can you comment on what Zakaria says?
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 02:50:07 PM
I wonder how Siege knows Obama doesn't know jack about the economy.
Because Rush says so.
You siegy, can you comment on what Zakaria says?
Zakaria is a Muslim (I think). I doubt Siege has any use for what he says.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 05:55:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 02:50:07 PM
I wonder how Siege knows Obama doesn't know jack about the economy.
Because Rush says so.
You siegy, can you comment on what Zakaria says?
Zakaria is a Muslim (I think). I doubt Siege has any use for what he says.
awww.... now he's never going to listen to the argument that Obama really is a centrist.
Blaming stuff on others is the new politics, Siege. Let's face it, each generation from here on out is likely to envy the one that came before it, and so successful politics is going to become finding a way to channel the anger of the populace onto appropriate scapegoats.
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 06:02:23 PM
awww.... now he's never going to listen to the argument that Obama really is a centrist.
It's a bit amusing that Siege believes that Obama blames everything on the Tea Party because a guy who blames everything on Obama says so. I'm surprised the Republicans haven't accused Obama of murdering children yet.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 06:27:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 06:02:23 PM
awww.... now he's never going to listen to the argument that Obama really is a centrist.
It's a bit amusing that Siege believes that Obama blames everything on the Tea Party because a guy who blames everything on Obama says so. I'm surprised the Republicans haven't accused Obama of murdering children yet.
Obama is no Mayor Nutters. Nutters in 2012!
It's a bit amuzing that you do not see how Obama is working to change america into a socialist society.
I'm sorry but I do not believe in nany states, redistribution of wealth and social inmobility.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 07:07:24 PM
It's a bit amuzing that you do not see how Obama is working to change america into a socialist society.
Since none of us see it could you enlighten us by providing some information on this?
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 07:07:24 PM
It's a bit amuzing that you do not see how Obama is working to change america into a socialist society.
I'm sorry but I do not believe in nany states, redistribution of wealth and social inmobility.
You're in trouble then, because both parties believe in nanny states, redistribution of wealth and social immobility. I guess you'll be voting for the ultra-crazy Libertarians or something.
Is Siegy even allowed to vote yet? That must explain the Likud write-in.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 07:07:24 PM
It's a bit amuzing that you do not see how Obama is working to change america into a socialist society.
I'm sorry but I do not believe in nany states, redistribution of wealth and social inmobility.
You come from a socialist society! You are a socialist!
Obama's approval rating is at an all-time low. Sanity is going out of style.
You know, I wish the Republicans were cool and evil like in the old days. Now they're just pathetic and stupid. They've gone from Michael to Fredo. :(
Quote from: Kleves on August 14, 2011, 09:04:44 PM
Obama's approval rating is at an all-time low. Sanity is going out of style.
You know, I wish the Republicans were cool and evil like in the old days. Now they're just pathetic and stupid. They've gone from Michael to Fredo. :(
Are there any candidates you like?
Disapproving of Obama isn't inherently insane.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 09:48:52 PM
Disapproving of Obama isn't inherently insane.
Neither is voting Republican, unfortunately in the current climate they seem to be one and the same. :(
I thought Siegy was a full-blown kibbutz-lover. :huh:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 01:48:45 AM
I thought Siegy was a full-blown kibbutz-lover. :huh:
A few years ago he was calling himself a tribal socialist or something similar. I suspect that the men in his unit have been giving him ideas.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 02:06:46 AM
I suspect that the men in his unit have been giving him ideas.
Unlikely.
Quote from: Kleves on August 14, 2011, 09:04:44 PM
Obama's approval rating is at an all-time low. Sanity is going out of style.
You know, I wish the Republicans were cool and evil like in the old days. Now they're just pathetic and stupid. :(
Agree
Old GOP
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.media.squarespace.com%2Fproduction%2F463909%2F5234769%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Fi3-122.jpg&hash=1541af524abf02ecedb729d5537c31cfb3efda18)
New GOP
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.domonation.com%2Fuploadedimages%2Fspiceekitkat%2Fmojo.gif&hash=67850ed82d9d30fbb1ec5b93af73ef2d72f39bd8)
Quote from: 11B4V on August 15, 2011, 05:23:27 AM
Agree
Old GOP
So true, I remember watching The Matrix for the first time, thinking, "You know, these guys are straight out of the Nixon White House". :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on August 14, 2011, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 14, 2011, 09:04:44 PM
Obama's approval rating is at an all-time low. Sanity is going out of style.
You know, I wish the Republicans were cool and evil like in the old days. Now they're just pathetic and stupid. They've gone from Michael to Fredo. :(
Are there any candidates you like?
Romney, Gingerich and Huntsman seem to merely be sipping the KoolAid(tm) and don't seem to be partaking of the Bat Guano. Bachman, Perry, Cain, Santorum and Paul seem to be doing one or both quite enthusiastically.
I don't think I'd prefer Romney, Gingerich or Huntsman over Obama, but they would be sane presidents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2011, 06:15:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 15, 2011, 05:23:27 AM
Agree
Old GOP
So true, I remember watching The Matrix for the first time, thinking, "You know, these guys are straight out of the Nixon White House". :lol:
Everything was cooler when Nixon was president. :(
It's kind of funny that the party of "small government" produces the presidents that get the most involved and (I feel) toe the line of overstepping their constitutional authority. People like Siege bitch and moan about "lame" presidents, when it's pretty damn obvious they don't have enough of a clue about civics to understand what it is the president actually does.
Real power is in congress, power. The president has limited pull and veto power, but the president is only a net negative on legislation, folks. This isn't a faux-monarchy. A president that refuses to bully Congress into getting his way is just one that's actually taking his oath to defend the constitution seriously.
Quote from: Syt on August 15, 2011, 07:28:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2011, 06:15:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 15, 2011, 05:23:27 AM
Agree
Old GOP
So true, I remember watching The Matrix for the first time, thinking, "You know, these guys are straight out of the Nixon White House". :lol:
Everything was cooler when Nixon was president. :(
This is going to be Neil's next avatar
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.runningbearartwork.com%2Fimages%2Fcoolnixon_thumb.jpg&hash=6b58206574e296e29654ef1d3f71ead0c52ca098)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2011, 06:42:50 PM
Obama is no Mayor Nutters. Nutters in 2012!
No. Just no. The whole country would stink as bad as Philadelphia does right now (literally!). He goes into Center City every day- I have no idea what possessed him to believe that rolling back trash pickup in a dense urban area was a good idea. I'm pretty unshakeable in my love for Philly, but my nose is a little more easily swayed. <_<
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 15, 2011, 07:38:18 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 14, 2011, 06:42:50 PM
Obama is no Mayor Nutters. Nutters in 2012!
No. Just no. The whole country would stink as bad as Philadelphia does right now (literally!). He goes into Center City every day- I have no idea what possessed him to believe that rolling back trash pickup in a dense urban area was a good idea. I'm pretty unshakeable in my love for Philly, but my nose is a little more easily swayed. <_<
Jersey people complaining about smells. :rolleyes:
Pawlenty is out, which eases the competition for the sanity vote.
But that leaves Huntsman, who looks like a no chancer, and Mitt, whose track record re national GOP primaries is unimpressive.
It doesn't really matter, does it?
Obama is going to get re-elected barring some kind of complete disaster.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 10:03:35 AM
It doesn't really matter, does it?
Obama is going to get re-elected barring some kind of complete disaster.
... like Obama not getting re-elected.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2011, 09:57:34 AMMitt, whose track record re national GOP primaries is unimpressive.
He did very well in 2k8.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 10:43:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2011, 09:57:34 AMMitt, whose track record re national GOP primaries is unimpressive.
He did very well in 2k8.
:huh:
He finished behind the talk show host from Arkansas.
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2011, 02:09:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 02:06:46 AM
I suspect that the men in his unit have been giving him ideas.
Unlikely.
Well, he must be getting them from somewhere. It's not like he could think up any on his own.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2011, 11:37:44 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 10:43:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2011, 09:57:34 AMMitt, whose track record re national GOP primaries is unimpressive.
He did very well in 2k8.
:huh:
He finished behind the talk show host from Arkansas.
Are you sure about that? He won more states than Huck did.
Fewer delegates.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 08:07:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 07:07:24 PM
It's a bit amuzing that you do not see how Obama is working to change america into a socialist society.
I'm sorry but I do not believe in nany states, redistribution of wealth and social inmobility.
You come from a socialist society! You are a socialist!
I hate socialism BECAUSE I come from a socialist society.
It doesn't WORK.
Obama won because he played to race card.
Americans wanted to elect a black dude to show the world they are not racist.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 01:48:45 AM
I thought Siegy was a full-blown kibbutz-lover. :huh:
Why would I be?
Kibbutz are not what you think they are.
They are capiltalist enterprises with employees, that runs hotels, rental cars, factories, etc.
Kibbutz members are but a minority of the manpower the kibbutzim are employing these days.
To be fair, the kibbutzim were the driving force behind the State of Israel during the early days.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 10:03:35 AM
It doesn't really matter, does it?
Obama is going to get re-elected barring some kind of complete disaster.
I think the oposite is more likely to occur.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 02:06:46 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 01:48:45 AM
I thought Siegy was a full-blown kibbutz-lover. :huh:
A few years ago he was calling himself a tribal socialist or something similar. I suspect that the men in his unit have been giving him ideas.
In my personal experience, socialism only works when there is a blood relationship and a sense of belonging in the community, hence the early Kibbutz success as oppoussed to state level socialist enterprises as the eastern block countries.
The moment you force an entire country to be socialist, you are leading your nation to disaster.
Socialism is not in human nature and people will cheat and live without working riding on others people backs.
And finally, keep in mind that I live in the US Army, which is nothing more than a socialist experiment.
We all get paid the same (based on rank) no matter if you are infantry or a cook.
It works because we do not create wealth directly, and live off the national taxes.
But is the US were to become a socialist society, who would we tax to pay for all the expenses?
The rest of the world?
Unlikely.
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 01:13:38 PM
I hate socialism BECAUSE I come from a socialist society.
It doesn't WORK.
Israel seems to work fairly well.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 01:15:19 PM
Obama won because he played to race card.
Americans wanted to elect a black dude to show the world they are not racist.
This is simply untrue. Obama made it a point
not to play the race card, which was a major reason for him winning.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 01:50:42 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 01:15:19 PM
Obama won because he played to race card.
Americans wanted to elect a black dude to show the world they are not racist.
This is simply untrue. Obama made it a point not to play the race card, which was a major reason for him winning.
Don't be naive. It is impossible in a society as racially charged as the US to not play the "race card".
And by racially charged I don't mean something negative.
Americans are racially aware, wheather lefty or righty, wheather trying to be colorblind or not.
All americans say race doesn't matter, yet they always want to be seen as accepting of minorities, sorrounded with them.
In my opinion americans are VERY racially aware, and voting for a black president made them feel good inside, as if they were liberated of the evils of the past. The guilty conscience of white americans was what gave Obama the White House.
That's different than saying Obama played the race cared Seeb.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 02:38:00 PM
That's different than saying Obama played the race cared Seeb.
I see your point.
Let me rephrase. Obama profited in the election by being black, regardless of wheather he played the race card or not.
Now, this was a one time event. Only the first black american to run in the finals got this boost.
He ain't gonna get this the next election.
Americans have cleansed the guilty consciences and next time they will vote for whomever they think will fix the economy regardless of race.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 10:03:35 AM
It doesn't really matter, does it?
Obama is going to get re-elected barring some kind of complete disaster.
Not so fast, my friend.
You may get your abolition of most Federal departments yet. Nothing is for certain.
Americans don't give a shit about showing the world we're not racist. Or anything else for that matter. Damn furriners. :rolleyes:
Obama won because the economy sucked and Bush got the blame for it.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 02:38:00 PM
That's different than saying Obama played the race cared Seeb.
I see your point.
Let me rephrase. Obama profited in the election by being black, regardless of wheather he played the race card or not.
Now, this was a one time event. Only the first black american to run in the finals got this boost.
He ain't gonna get this the next election.
Americans have cleansed the guilty consciences and next time they will vote for whomever they think will fix the economy regardless of race.
You could just as easily say he was damaged by being black. He didn't win Missouri despite the state going for the Democrats in almost every other election. Talking to my relatives in St. Louis (Democrats all, and typically racist), it's not hard to see why.
My guess is that race was a net benefit, but certainly not worth the 7-8% points he beat McCain by.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2011, 03:04:09 PM
My guess is that race was a net benefit, but certainly not worth the 7-8% points he beat McCain by.
Yeah, Palin was worth at least 3% herself.
It certainly was the deciding factor for me. Biden was a disappointment, Palin pissed me off by giving me no choice.
I now think McCain might have been the better choice over Obama, but I still wouldn't have voted for him with Palin on the ticket. I think he could have managed Congress much better, and the worst of the stupid intransigence over health care and the budget wouldn't have happened.
It wouldn't have happened because McCain wouldn't be a Democrat. The number one reason why politics have been so hostile since Obama's elections are that Republicans are sore losers, and have a habit of denying the legitimacy of Democratic presidents.
:lol: Good one.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 03:55:39 PM
It wouldn't have happened because McCain wouldn't be a Democrat. The number one reason why politics have been so hostile since Obama's elections are that Republicans are sore losers, and have a habit of denying the legitimacy of Democratic presidents.
When Moral issues become political issues or vice versa then political opponents become immoral, and if you are religious, they become enemies of god. When the opposition is made up of immoral enemies of god then I'd be surprised that politics weren't hostile.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 02:47:23 PM
Let me rephrase. Obama profited in the election by being black, regardless of wheather he played the race card or not.
Now, this was a one time event. Only the first black american to run in the finals got this boost.
He ain't gonna get this the next election.
Americans have cleansed the guilty consciences and next time they will vote for whomever they think will fix the economy regardless of race.
That's not entirely accurate. Among those who vote, swing voters will vote however they will based largely on who they think will manage the economy best, regardless of race; and each party's core voters will vote for their chosen party's candidate, regardless of any other considerations. Now one of the keys here is the phrase "among those who vote". One factor in any election is which party can turn out their base. There's no doubt that black voters are part of the Democratic party's base, and that they turned out in historically high levels to vote for Obama in 2008, and that was one of the factors that won him the election. Will that be true in 2012? I suspect that black voters in 2012 will still turn out in higher than normal numbers to vote for him again, but perhaps not at quite high a level as 2008. But I don't really know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 03:56:24 PM
:lol: Good one.
Yes, the impeachment of George W. Bush by angry Dems was an amazing specticel.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 03:56:24 PM
:lol: Good one.
Yes, the impeachment of George W. Bush by angry Dems was an amazing specticel.
I wish I could spell.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
Yes, the impeachment of George W. Bush by angry Dems was an amazing specticel.
Almost as amazing a specticel as the impeachment of Obama by angry Republicans. It's a judgement call which of the two specticels was more amazing. Both were pretty damn amazing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
Yes, the impeachment of George W. Bush by angry Dems was an amazing specticel.
Almost as amazing a specticel as the impeachment of Obama by angry Republicans. It's a judgement call which of the two specticels was more amazing. Both were pretty damn amazing.
It started with Clinton :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
Yes, the impeachment of George W. Bush by angry Dems was an amazing specticel.
Almost as amazing a specticel as the impeachment of Obama by angry Republicans. It's a judgement call which of the two specticels was more amazing. Both were pretty damn amazing.
Please find me the occasion where Democrats impeached a Republican President. Then we can say both sides are equal.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:26:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
Yes, the impeachment of George W. Bush by angry Dems was an amazing specticel.
Almost as amazing a specticel as the impeachment of Obama by angry Republicans. It's a judgement call which of the two specticels was more amazing. Both were pretty damn amazing.
Please find me the occasion where Democrats impeached a Republican President. Then we can say both sides are equal.
I blame Nixon for there being no example of this.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:26:16 PM
Please find me the occasion where Democrats impeached a Republican President. Then we can say both sides are equal.
If in your system of score keeping you only get points for impeachments, DGuller's post doesn't make any sense, since he was talking about Republican behavior during Obama's administration.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 04:33:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:26:16 PM
Please find me the occasion where Democrats impeached a Republican President. Then we can say both sides are equal.
If in your system of score keeping you only get points for impeachments, DGuller's post doesn't make any sense, since he was talking about Republican behavior during Obama's administration.
It would seem to me the word "habit" would refer to chronic behavior suggesting another Democratic Presidency, i.e. the Clinton Presidency. And give the GOP some time, if OBAMA wins in 2012 they may very well impeach him.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:44:44 PM
It would seem to me the word "habit" would refer to chronic behavior suggesting another Democratic Presidency, i.e. the Clinton Presidency. And give the GOP some time, if OBAMA wins in 2012 they may very well impeach him.
Sure. Like I said before, IF the only useful proxy for partisan hostility in your mind is impeachments, and everything that Democrats said or did during the Bush administration doesn't even register, then yes, it naturally follows that Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist and Democrats are the opposite. But I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to only take into account impeachments.
Clinton was impeached for personal behavior, not for bad policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:44:44 PM
It would seem to me the word "habit" would refer to chronic behavior suggesting another Democratic Presidency, i.e. the Clinton Presidency. And give the GOP some time, if OBAMA wins in 2012 they may very well impeach him.
Sure. Like I said before, IF the only useful proxy for partisan hostility in your mind is impeachments, and everything that Democrats said or did during the Bush administration doesn't even register, then yes, it naturally follows that Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist and Democrats are the opposite. But I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to only take into account impeachments.
The impeachment is a good indication of how wide spread and strong anti-Clinton feeling was. We could spend years pointing out examples of some yahoo saying one thing or another, but the impeachment is something concrete. Something that can't be denied, or brushed away as the work of a few kooks. It exists on an entirely different level then anything Democrats said or did about GWB.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 05:21:55 PM
The impeachment is a good indication of how wide spread and strong anti-Clinton feeling was. We could spend years pointing out examples of some yahoo saying one thing or another, but the impeachment is something concrete. Something that can't be denied, or brushed away as the work of a few kooks. It exists on an entirely different level then anything Democrats said or did about GWB.
Sure. Like I said before, IF the only useful proxy for partisan hostility in your mind is impeachments, and everything that Democrats said or did during the Bush administration doesn't even register, then yes, it naturally follows that Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist and Democrats are the opposite. But I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to only take into account impeachments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 05:32:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 05:21:55 PM
The impeachment is a good indication of how wide spread and strong anti-Clinton feeling was. We could spend years pointing out examples of some yahoo saying one thing or another, but the impeachment is something concrete. Something that can't be denied, or brushed away as the work of a few kooks. It exists on an entirely different level then anything Democrats said or did about GWB.
Sure. Like I said before, IF the only useful proxy for partisan hostility in your mind is impeachments, and everything that Democrats said or did during the Bush administration doesn't even register, then yes, it naturally follows that Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist and Democrats are the opposite. But I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to only take into account impeachments.
This is Raz we're talking about here.
Unfortunately, we know Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist without using impeachments as a barometer. And yes, there has been a single theme in loyal opposition GOP strategy between the Clinton and Obama Administrations, and that is reinforcing and maintaining an appearance of illigitimacy.
Whether it's impeachment or implying the President isn't a US citizen, Republitards sincerely believe a Democrat should not be in the White House.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2011, 05:42:09 PM
This is Raz we're talking about here.
Unfortunately, we know Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist without using impeachments as a barometer. And yes, there has been a single theme in loyal opposition GOP strategy between the Clinton and Obama Administrations, and that is reinforcing and maintaining an appearance of illigitimacy.
Whether it's impeachment or implying the President isn't a US citizen, Republitards sincerely believe a Democrat should not be in the White House.
I see. So now the two useful proxies for partisanship, hostility and obstructionism are (a) impeachments not related to Watergate, and (b) birthers at the fringe of one's party.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 05:46:34 PMI see. So now the two useful proxies for partisanship, hostility and obstructionism are (a) impeachments not related to Watergate, and (b) birthers at the fringe of one's party.
I didn't write the Republitard playbook, I'm just a spectator.
Showing up at rallies with guns? Check. Believing he's a Mooselimb born in Africa? Check. Socialism and all that jazz? Check.
Hell, look at Berkut: he's been totally convinced all his taxes for the last three years are going straight to Ms. LaTarsha Baker, minority single mother of 4, of 208 E. 117th St, New York City.
So it works.
How many baby daddies does Ms. Baker have?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 05:46:34 PM
I see. So now the two useful proxies for partisanship, hostility and obstructionism are (a) impeachments not related to Watergate, and (b) birthers at the fringe of one's party.
I seem to recall that the "fringe" of the Republicans that didn't believe Obama was born in the US was something like 40% of those surveyed. Pretty big fringe.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2011, 05:57:20 PM
Hell, look at Berkut: he's been totally convinced all his taxes for the last three years are going straight to Ms. LaTarsha Baker, minority single mother of 4, of 208 E. 117th St, New York City.
So it works.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2011, 06:06:58 PM
Pretty big fringe.
Sometimes it is nothing but fringe :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 05:32:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 05:21:55 PM
The impeachment is a good indication of how wide spread and strong anti-Clinton feeling was. We could spend years pointing out examples of some yahoo saying one thing or another, but the impeachment is something concrete. Something that can't be denied, or brushed away as the work of a few kooks. It exists on an entirely different level then anything Democrats said or did about GWB.
Sure. Like I said before, IF the only useful proxy for partisan hostility in your mind is impeachments, and everything that Democrats said or did during the Bush administration doesn't even register, then yes, it naturally follows that Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist and Democrats are the opposite. But I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to only take into account impeachments.
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 05:46:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2011, 05:42:09 PM
This is Raz we're talking about here.
Unfortunately, we know Republicans are partisan, hostile, and obstructionist without using impeachments as a barometer. And yes, there has been a single theme in loyal opposition GOP strategy between the Clinton and Obama Administrations, and that is reinforcing and maintaining an appearance of illigitimacy.
Whether it's impeachment or implying the President isn't a US citizen, Republitards sincerely believe a Democrat should not be in the White House.
I see. So now the two useful proxies for partisanship, hostility and obstructionism are (a) impeachments not related to Watergate, and (b) birthers at the fringe of one's party.
We can allow all impeachments related to Watergate. Every President impeached because of his or her involvement in Watergate is fair game.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
If people claim to have principles, defend those principles, wherever the chips fall. Otherwise your just another tribalist whose opinion has zero meaning.
What were they investigating?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
If people claim to have principles, defend those principles, wherever the chips fall. Otherwise your just another tribalist whose opinion has zero meaning.
This is deceptive. You can say "the left". Who exactly, how many? By using vague statements you can imply everyone on the left did this which is not true. When I point to the impeachment I can point to an extraordinary action done by Republicans and exactly who voted for it. But if you want, we can use vague statements. For instance I say that "the Right" encouraged people to shoot at federal officers during the Clinton presidency. A fairly popular radio show host did just that. Of course not all members of "The Right" did this, but we can't tell how many agreed with it but said nothing. I could say this, but it would be, in my opinion, dishonest.
There were several members of Congress who attempted to block Bush's inauguration.
You have to admit that 2000 elections were an extremely unfortunate affair, and if there ever was a non-fraudulent election that would fail at giving the winner legitimacy, that one would be it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
Americans don't give a shit about showing the world we're not racist. Or anything else for that matter. Damn furriners. :rolleyes:
Obama won because the economy sucked and Bush got the blame for it.
Americans care about showing themselves that they're not racist.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 07:39:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
Americans don't give a shit about showing the world we're not racist. Or anything else for that matter. Damn furriners. :rolleyes:
Obama won because the economy sucked and Bush got the blame for it.
Americans care about showing themselves that they're not racist.
Exactly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2011, 07:31:04 PM
There were several members of Congress who attempted to block Bush's inauguration.
Did so such a bill pass?
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 07:39:32 PM
Americans care about showing themselves that they're not racist.
This is true to an extent. Also true that a certain amount of casual racism is unavoidable. I think these factors tended to balance each other out.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2011, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 05:46:34 PM
I see. So now the two useful proxies for partisanship, hostility and obstructionism are (a) impeachments not related to Watergate, and (b) birthers at the fringe of one's party.
I seem to recall that the "fringe" of the Republicans that didn't believe Obama was born in the US was something like 40% of those surveyed. Pretty big fringe.
I still wonder who the hell they surveyed for that. I don't know anybody who believed that crap.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Obama is an extremist because he is an impediment to Republican control of the White House. He could be Reagan-come-again, and so long as he was Democrat he'd be an extremist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
Actual question--Obama did stop torture at Gitmo, right? I forget.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
Actual question--Obama did stop torture at Gitmo, right? I forget.
No, he did not.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
Actual question--Obama did stop torture at Gitmo, right? I forget.
No, he did not.
Shit.
Well, I wanted to vote for Edwards.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Sooo.. how does Obama differ from an American centrist then?
Fuck all of you. The attacks on Nixon were partisan hackery.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 10:11:26 PM
Shit.
Well, I wanted to vote for Edwards.
I tried to. It turned out badly.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
The healthcare plan was much less than the left wanted and was very similar to a previous Republican plan.
The stimulus package that was passed was much less than the left wanted.
He extended the Bush tax cuts.
Which things has he done that push him left?
Quote from: sbr on August 15, 2011, 11:01:48 PM
Which things has he done that push him left?
The federal government still exists.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
Actual question--Obama did stop torture at Gitmo, right? I forget.
No, he did not.
Are there people being tortured at Gitmo right now?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2011, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
It's not the only, one but it dwarfs any other. I understand it why you don't like it. It makes your guys look terrible.
The principle reason I don't like it is because it's willfull ignorance. Just as it's willfull ignorance to say that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. If you think that lying under oath and obstructing an investigation was not an impeachable offense, go ahead and make that case, but don't pretend it was about a blowjob. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election." It's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won. It's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
Actual question--Obama did stop torture at Gitmo, right? I forget.
No, he did not.
Are there people being tortured at Gitmo right now?
Not that I am aware of...
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 08:07:21 AM
Are there people being tortured at Gitmo right now?
One would certainly hope so.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:23:29 AM
Not that I am aware of...
So what's your point? That Obama failed to stop torture at Gtmo because it was no longer occurring there?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:23:29 AM
Not that I am aware of...
So what's your point? That Obama failed to stop torture at Gtmo because it was no longer occurring there?
I've never seen any evidence that torture was ever occurring at Gitmo.
The problem with Gitmo was always the rather dubious legal status of the people incarcerated there, and to the extent that problem has been solved (by letting many of them go or moving them elsewhere) it was largely done before Obama was in office.
Since taking office, he has done exactly nothing, so far as I can tell, in regards to Gitmo that Bush did not do, and far less. Of course, prior to the problem sitting in his lap, we heard about Gitmo and the terrible injustice of it all daily from the left. Funny, now it apparently just isn't that big of a deal anymore.
Quote from: BerkutI've never seen any evidence that torture was ever occurring at Gitmo.
You tricked me, Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
Since taking office, he has done exactly nothing, so far as I can tell, in regards to Gitmo that Bush did not do, and far less. Of course, prior to the problem sitting in his lap, we heard about Gitmo and the terrible injustice of it all daily from the left. Funny, now it apparently just isn't that big of a deal anymore.
Plenty of places on the net where the democratic base still rages about it. Democratic politicians and most talking heads though, I'll agree with you there. They dropped the issue like a hot potato.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:23:29 AM
Not that I am aware of...
So what's your point? That Obama failed to stop torture at Gtmo because it was no longer occurring there?
I've never seen any evidence that torture was ever occurring at Gitmo.
The problem with Gitmo was always the rather dubious legal status of the people incarcerated there, and to the extent that problem has been solved (by letting many of them go or moving them elsewhere) it was largely done before Obama was in office.
Since taking office, he has done exactly nothing, so far as I can tell, in regards to Gitmo that Bush did not do, and far less. Of course, prior to the problem sitting in his lap, we heard about Gitmo and the terrible injustice of it all daily from the left. Funny, now it apparently just isn't that big of a deal anymore.
If I recall most of the changes were forced on Bush by the Courts so it's a bit disingenuous to say Bush did it. I'm not sure what your beef is though. That the courts solved many of the problems before Obama could so Obama is somehow dishonest?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 08:48:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:42:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 08:23:29 AM
Not that I am aware of...
So what's your point? That Obama failed to stop torture at Gtmo because it was no longer occurring there?
I've never seen any evidence that torture was ever occurring at Gitmo.
The problem with Gitmo was always the rather dubious legal status of the people incarcerated there, and to the extent that problem has been solved (by letting many of them go or moving them elsewhere) it was largely done before Obama was in office.
Since taking office, he has done exactly nothing, so far as I can tell, in regards to Gitmo that Bush did not do, and far less. Of course, prior to the problem sitting in his lap, we heard about Gitmo and the terrible injustice of it all daily from the left. Funny, now it apparently just isn't that big of a deal anymore.
If I recall most of the changes were forced on Bush by the Courts so it's a bit disingenuous to say Bush did it. I'm not sure what your beef is though. That the courts solved many of the problems before Obama could so Obama is somehow dishonest?
Uhhh, who said anything about Obama being dishonest? Or that I had a beef?
Oh, I thought you had a point of some kind. If you are just prattling on, then go ahead.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 09:10:12 AM
Oh, I thought you had a point of some kind. If you are just prattling on, then go ahead.
I was answering a question asked by someone else, you twit. And YOU then asked me a question, which I foolishly answered.
Thanks for reminding me AGAIN why I should never respond to anything you post.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PMHe's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Depends how you define left but I think Obama's a relatively centrist in post-New Deal politics. From Ike to Reagan (and maybe beyond) he doesn't seem that extreme or lefty. He's centre left, of course, but that's why he's a Democrat.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Well he did do the biggest expansion of entitlements since the 60s...oh wait no that was Bush.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 12:51:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Well he did do the biggest expansion of entitlements since the 60s...oh wait no that was Bush.
Not that I'm gonna let you trick me into defending Bush's Compassionate Conservatism, but how does his prescription drug benefit trump Obamacare?
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2011, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 12:51:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
Well he did do the biggest expansion of entitlements since the 60s...oh wait no that was Bush.
Not that I'm gonna let you trick me into defending Bush's Compassionate Conservatism, but how does his prescription drug benefit trump Obamacare?
I think it has something to do with net cost in the long term.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2011, 06:24:54 PM
Not that I'm gonna let you trick me into defending Bush's Compassionate Conservatism, but how does his prescription drug benefit trump Obamacare?
It is just a pure benefit being given out by the Feds to peeps. Obamacare is more 'get insurance or we will get you' than a big benefit.
Anyway Obama may indeed be leftist in his heart but he mostly just muddles along in his policies than does anything particularly ideological.
Quote from: derspiess on August 15, 2011, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
siegy, I still want to hear from you why you think obama is an extreme leftist rather than the centrist his policies would suggest?
He's only centrist from your European perspective. Foreign policy aside, of course.
And gay rights, healthcare, drugs ...
Obama (in the eye of the european)
Healthcare - he is off the far right of the spectrum. Europeans have actual single payer universal health care over the tax budget.
Gay Rights - centrist. Even European Conservatives are pro-gay rights. Gay marriage or military service is not considered controversial.
Drugs - he is far right. Drug prices are regulated and controlled.
Foreign Policy - center right, seeks to end the existing wars and make peace in palestine
etc.etc.
To be fair, nobody is really trying to make peace in Palestine.
I like how in the last debate people in the audience booed a gay solider. Such nice chaps.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PMIt's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election."
Until 9/11. I don't remember the howling. My impression was that the left generally started sneering and assumed that he'd be a one term President as, in the early days, it looked like he would.
QuoteIt's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won.
Not true. Iraq divided the left (and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise) most of the American left support Iraq if they grew increasingly dubious about Bush and Rumsfeld. But I don't think you can say that crossed over into the mainstream until 2005-06. There's a reason they nominated Kerry not Dean.
QuoteIt's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
The civil liberties left have legitimate grievances, they are not the left.
The biggest crime of the Bush administration was torture.
QuoteNo, he did not.
No he didn't. Congress did, led by John McCain in 2005 and Bush signed that law.
Obama didn't stop detention, but there's a difference. The issue of detention is real and difficult (I think Obama and Bush are probably wrong on it, but I'm not sure), torture's a civilised society whoring herself out to fear.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
I like how in the last debate people in the audience booed a gay solider. Such nice chaps.
I would have booed him. Martiniusism should be stamped out.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 23, 2011, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
I like how in the last debate people in the audience booed a gay solider. Such nice chaps.
I would have booed him. Martiniusism should be stamped out.
That's not Martinusism. The soldier didn't use shitty metaphors or call for death and persecution of people he doesn't like. He did, however join the military and serve his country.
I don't think it's fair to call him a Martinusist.
Quote from: Jacob on September 23, 2011, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 23, 2011, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
I like how in the last debate people in the audience booed a gay solider. Such nice chaps.
I would have booed him. Martiniusism should be stamped out.
That's not Martinusism. The soldier didn't use shitty metaphors or call for death and persecution of people he doesn't like. He did, however join the military and serve his country.
I don't think it's fair to call him a Martinusist.
Sigh.
You fuckers fatigue me.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 11:53:58 AM
Obama (in the eye of the european)
Healthcare - he is off the far right of the spectrum. Europeans have actual single payer universal health care over the tax budget.
Gay Rights - centrist. Even European Conservatives are pro-gay rights. Gay marriage or military service is not considered controversial.
Drugs - he is far right. Drug prices are regulated and controlled.
Foreign Policy - center right, seeks to end the existing wars and make peace in palestine
etc.etc.
I think it's much more useful in judging the ideology of someone in a foreign country to look at the direction of movement in their policies rather than get hung up on their specific positions. For instance, Obama has said in the past he'd like to have a single payer system. He's not pushing it because it wouldn't get him anywhere.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2011, 07:39:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 07:01:39 PMIt's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left in this country wasn't howling for Bush's head from day one over his "stolen election."
Until 9/11. I don't remember the howling. My impression was that the left generally started sneering and assumed that he'd be a one term President as, in the early days, it looked like he would.
QuoteIt's willfull ignorance to pretend that the left didn't try to bludgeon Bush with Iraq and then stop caring after we had won.
Not true. Iraq divided the left (and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise) most of the American left support Iraq if they grew increasingly dubious about Bush and Rumsfeld. But I don't think you can say that crossed over into the mainstream until 2005-06. There's a reason they nominated Kerry not Dean.
QuoteIt's willfull ignorance to pretend that Gitmo was the most heinous crime known to man until Obama continued it.
The civil liberties left have legitimate grievances, they are not the left.
The biggest crime of the Bush administration was torture.
QuoteNo, he did not.
No he didn't. Congress did, led by John McCain in 2005 and Bush signed that law.
Obama didn't stop detention, but there's a difference. The issue of detention is real and difficult (I think Obama and Bush are probably wrong on it, but I'm not sure), torture's a civilised society whoring herself out to fear.
I think Yi mostly remembers mean things said about Bush on the Pdox OT. Bush's approval rating was surprisingly high after he took office. In other words many in the left gave him a chance. Higher then say, the percentage of people who actually voted for him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2011, 07:39:34 PM
Until 9/11. I don't remember the howling.
Really? There was a lot of rancor over the election.
Yeah, that's how I remember it, even though at the time I was leaning toward Bush, I thought it was questionable and a lot of people were livid.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 23, 2011, 11:59:48 PM
Yeah, that's how I remember it, even though at the time I was leaning toward Bush, I thought it was questionable and a lot of people were livid.
Some were, but you didn't have the Minority leader of the Senate say that his chief goal was to make Bush a one turn President.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 08:49:44 PM
I think Yi mostly remembers mean things said about Bush on the Pdox OT. Bush's approval rating was surprisingly high after he took office. In other words many in the left gave him a chance. Higher then say, the percentage of people who actually voted for him.
I don't recall that being the case. I think that the way Bush got the presidency, by a Supreme Court vote, didn't bring any kind of closure to the election results. It also didn't help that Bush seized the opportunity anyway, despite his questionable legitimacy, to push through the hard right agenda. It wasn't until 9/11 that Bush got the approval ratings from the Democrats.
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2011, 02:27:24 AM
It also didn't help that Bush seized the opportunity anyway, despite his questionable legitimacy, to push through the hard right agenda.
That was certainly the Democratic talking point of the time, but I don't remember his agenda being all that "hard right". He reduced the amount of stem cell research the government paid for and he lowered taxes. And he picked a former Senator from a swing state to his cabinet. Somehow these got spun into Bush being an ardent reactionary.
Quote from: Jacob on September 23, 2011, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 23, 2011, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
I like how in the last debate people in the audience booed a gay solider. Such nice chaps.
I would have booed him. Martiniusism should be stamped out.
That's not Martinusism. The soldier didn't use shitty metaphors or call for death and persecution of people he doesn't like. He did, however join the military and serve his country.
I don't think it's fair to call him a Martinusist.
Well, now that DADT is repealed (the only benefit of doing that is the massive aggro for conservatives), I can safely resolve my cognitive dissonance and consider all American soldiers to be murderers and college drop-outs. :moon:
Quote from: Neil on September 23, 2011, 09:12:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2011, 07:39:34 PM
Until 9/11. I don't remember the howling.
Really? There was a lot of rancor over the election.
My impression was that it died down after, about February.
As I say my impression was that Bush started with lower than average approval ratings and they declined pretty steadily through his first year until 9/11. Once Jeffords switched and Bush started to look very beatable at that early stage the Democrats switched to a haughty sneer and conviction of victory. It may have been different on 'the left' in general.
That all ended with 9/11 when he became a war President.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2011, 12:16:04 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 23, 2011, 11:59:48 PM
Yeah, that's how I remember it, even though at the time I was leaning toward Bush, I thought it was questionable and a lot of people were livid.
Some were, but you didn't have the Minority leader of the Senate say that his chief goal was to make Bush a one turn President.
No, it was just assumed that moron would be.
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2011, 02:27:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 08:49:44 PM
I think Yi mostly remembers mean things said about Bush on the Pdox OT. Bush's approval rating was surprisingly high after he took office. In other words many in the left gave him a chance. Higher then say, the percentage of people who actually voted for him.
I don't recall that being the case. I think that the way Bush got the presidency, by a Supreme Court vote, didn't bring any kind of closure to the election results. It also didn't help that Bush seized the opportunity anyway, despite his questionable legitimacy, to push through the hard right agenda. It wasn't until 9/11 that Bush got the approval ratings from the Democrats.
Remember, he did get bipartisan support on his tax cuts.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2011, 03:18:56 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 23, 2011, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 23, 2011, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
I like how in the last debate people in the audience booed a gay solider. Such nice chaps.
I would have booed him. Martiniusism should be stamped out.
That's not Martinusism. The soldier didn't use shitty metaphors or call for death and persecution of people he doesn't like. He did, however join the military and serve his country.
I don't think it's fair to call him a Martinusist.
Well, now that DADT is repealed (the only benefit of doing that is the massive aggro for conservatives), I can safely resolve my cognitive dissonance and consider all American soldiers to be murderers and college drop-outs. :moon:
So now that homos are allowed to serve openly you now think worse of them?
That seems about right.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2011, 10:38:44 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2011, 02:27:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2011, 08:49:44 PM
I think Yi mostly remembers mean things said about Bush on the Pdox OT. Bush's approval rating was surprisingly high after he took office. In other words many in the left gave him a chance. Higher then say, the percentage of people who actually voted for him.
I don't recall that being the case. I think that the way Bush got the presidency, by a Supreme Court vote, didn't bring any kind of closure to the election results. It also didn't help that Bush seized the opportunity anyway, despite his questionable legitimacy, to push through the hard right agenda. It wasn't until 9/11 that Bush got the approval ratings from the Democrats.
Remember, he did get bipartisan support on his tax cuts.
Huh? I mean sure, if you want to narrowly define bipartisanism as he got 3 votes from red state Democrats. The Bush tax cuts passed with 50 votes in the Senate with Dick Cheney being a tie breaker. On top of that Bush couldn't get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster so the tax cuts had to be passed under reconciliation rules and thus expired in 10 years.
To me bipartisan support means the legislation gets a super majority in the Senate... i.e. the Patriot Act.
Cain upset in Florida straw poll is very interesting. 37+%. Wow. More than twice Perry and Romney.
Weird fluke?
Worse: straw poll.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 25, 2011, 09:22:50 AM
Cain upset in Florida straw poll is very interesting. 37+%. Wow. More than twice Perry and Romney.
Weird fluke?
Are you really treatng a straw poll seriously?
I heard a snippet of Pizza Man's tax reform speech. National sales tax, flat income tax rate of 9%, and corporate tax rate of 9%.
"The key to unlocking America's future prosperity is NINE, NINE, NINE."
So that's what 999 meant. I thought it was part of a phone number or some kind of Pizza deal.
I'd vote for him if he gave me free pizza :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2011, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 25, 2011, 09:22:50 AM
Cain upset in Florida straw poll is very interesting. 37+%. Wow. More than twice Perry and Romney.
Weird fluke?
Are you really treatng a straw poll seriously?
I heard a snippet of Pizza Man's tax reform speech. National sales tax, flat income tax rate of 9%, and corporate tax rate of 9%.
"The key to unlocking America's future prosperity is NINE, NINE, NINE."
No, just curious as to the reaction from Languistas.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 25, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2011, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 25, 2011, 09:22:50 AM
Cain upset in Florida straw poll is very interesting. 37+%. Wow. More than twice Perry and Romney.
Weird fluke?
Are you really treatng a straw poll seriously?
I heard a snippet of Pizza Man's tax reform speech. National sales tax, flat income tax rate of 9%, and corporate tax rate of 9%.
"The key to unlocking America's future prosperity is NINE, NINE, NINE."
No, just curious as to the reaction from Languistas.
The only black man in politics America likes is Colin Powell.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 25, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2011, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 25, 2011, 09:22:50 AM
Cain upset in Florida straw poll is very interesting. 37+%. Wow. More than twice Perry and Romney.
Weird fluke?
Are you really treatng a straw poll seriously?
I heard a snippet of Pizza Man's tax reform speech. National sales tax, flat income tax rate of 9%, and corporate tax rate of 9%.
"The key to unlocking America's future prosperity is NINE, NINE, NINE."
No, just curious as to the reaction from Languistas.
Can you get Batshit flavored pizza delivered?