Poll
Pretty sure Bachman has polled double digits in past polls.
This is the GOP. Pointless bullshit is par for the course.
Wilson is making a comeback.
His head is tilted towards his right, but his eyes are focused towards his left. Clearly you can't trust him.
<------------
They can do such neat things with their hair.
Because they all come from the same website?
I'm thinking he might have run to be the smartest guy on stage on national tv.
TV Show-Books and a Newt GI Joe line.
I think we'll see a Huntsman surge story soon. He's up to 11% in New Hampshire and I think he could start eating into Romney's vote there. If the impression is that Romney's finished then why should anyone settle for him.
And your suggestion is that those who were settling from Romney would settle for Huntsman?
I wish, big Hunstman supporter. He won't go anywhere. :(
I'd also note that the editor of Red State's tweeted that he's reconsidering Huntsman and has since written him up as actually pretty reliably conservative and anti-crony capitalist, all of which is true. By contrast only 20-something percent of Republicans think Romney is a conservative.
I think Huntsman - whose campaign is run by the same people who ran John McCain's in 2000 - could get a surge. What he's done is be moderate in tone and emphasise his McKinsey style pragmatic governorship which appeals to the sort of vote Romney should have locked down. But at the same time Huntsman was a pragmatic governor who worked with Democrats in Utah, which makes him far more conservative than Romney - or probably several other candidates. If he can draw attention to that record in his sensible, moderate tone then I think he can basically become what Romney was meant to be - and perhaps would have been had he had any core identity.
That may not happen, of course. But the sense I get is that no-one really wants Romney, not even his base. Huntsman seems to me the sort of candidate who could do well in New Hampshire and if Romney fades there's no-one else who can take on Newt/whoever else as tribune of the country club.
Edit: Another example from just tonight. Huntsman has had a go at Donald Trump moderating a Republican debate (seriously?) as 'business over substance' and said 'I'm not going to kiss his ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy' - admittedly I think this was because him and Ron Paul weren't invited by Donald Trump (Donald Trump!) because they weren't sufficiently serious candidates.
But I think that attitude could appeal to the sort of Republican who feels this has all got a bit close to a reality TV show. Especially when compared with Romney who will leap through any hoop to get the nomination.
Why, because no H?
Yup.
You've seen common Mormon first names, right? He lucked right the fuck out, IMO.
With not one but two Mormons in the race, I bet they think they've died and gone to Kolob.
And what the fuck kind of name is "Mitt," anyway?
Middle name. First name is Willard.
It's a name that is not as bad as Newt.
I don't think Jonathan is his borth name, though. I think it's actually Jon. Oh well, no big deal in any case.
I'm telling you, he's lucky his name's not Thummim or Nimrod.
I've met some with "normal" names and some with pretty obscure biblical names. I wouldn't say it's the norm, no, but given what it could have been, complaining about "Jon" seems a bit overwrought.
Well, if he's willing to eradicate the mutant menace, I may have to consider voting for him.
Talk about campaign finance reform!
They're like the Old Testament names no one uses. "This is my son, Lot". That sort of thing.
If I ever have a male kid, I'm gonna name him Chaim or Noach. Love that voiceless uvular fricative.
"Is likeable" and "would make a good president" are, as we learned with GWB, not of necessity correlated.
But I can barely stand anyone I actually agree with. I almost always find conservatives more likeable - in the US at least, over here there's noone with enough personality to like.
And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.
:unsure:
Yeah, I clicked on the link thinking that it was going to be something where she looked bad but she actually seemed pretty decent.
Too cold and wet.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
What is "Languish", Alex?
I think when you dig deeper on Pauls stuff it gets really scary. Conspiracy theory nonsense and Militia bullshit. His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds. He later denied writing them. He's an excellent example of how Conservatives have used "libertarianism" and "smaller government" to court the racist vote in the south. That doesn't come up so much anymore, but it good to remember where a movement has been and what it's roots are.
Fortunately, Paul comes across as simply a kooky old man. Which is what he is. His son has some charisma and might be able to get much larger following.
Enough with the Jeopardy stuff today.
Poor baby :(
Probably because he didn't write them. Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?
Did Lyndon LaRouche ever write for his own newsletter?
Teaching your children a proper moral code is no more repugnant than teaching them to count.
I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.
I don't think so. I was just curious.
I was just making a crack. I have no idea if LaRouche wrote for his own rag.
Why would you have it in your news letter in the first place? Did he bother to read his own newsletter? It's not like it only happened once and then he apologized. It would be really fucking strange if a Congressmen published a newsletter that promoted views he disagreed with out saying who wrote them. In fact, most of them contain no bylines (though some are in the first person so they were either written by Paul or someone wanted to give that impression. It would seem rather difficult to distance yourself from a newsletter that you publish that has your name on it.
You always doubt me, don't you? I am hurt.
But here you go. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/ The News letters themselves are look like their in some sort of adobe acrobat thingy, but I haven't figured out to zoom in to read them. Apparently there is a way, they appear to be set up for that.
The Reason article linked right off the bat suggests that Paul didn't write them. It doesn't say "Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008", nor anything remotely close to that. Did the newsone.com article's writer even read the Reason article? (That is a rhetorical question. There's no way you could know the answer to that. Unless you are the newsone.com writer, I guess.)
EDIT: I did some browsing on newsone.com and have come to one definitive conclusion: the odds of Raz being the lead blogger of newsone.com are almost infinitesimally slim.
If we took away all those federal guarantees, are you confident that none of the bad old days would come back? Where the President's critics openly call him a "Welfare thug", and deny he even has a right to be President of the United States? Do you really trust them to respect everyone's civil rights?
Saw this later after I posted the bid here.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/05/as-a-gay-parent
Well in 2001, his comment was that his staffers told him to say that they were written by him because voters wouldn't understand that he had a ghostwriter who did them and he wasn't even aware of the content of his newsletters.
There was also though a suggestion that the ghostwriter was actually known supporter/friend/confidant of Ron Paul.
Totally agree. The one thing I always liked about the Clintons was that they kept Chelsea out of the spotlight as much as possible when she was a minor.
I'm not saying it's classy. All I'm saying is that the use of rather superlative terms like "repugnant" or "shock the conscience"--terms you use to describe America's use of torture in the War on Terror, or a priest fucking a child--is a little extravagant in this case, where, at worst, some mom cajoled her kid into making an innocuous political statement--and it is not clear that the child wasn't into it and didn't just get nervous talking to a madwoman. A case where the only damage that could possibly accrue is talking to a stranger. I mean, not since the Holocaust, right?
Words have connotations. Framing everything as an abomination is unnecessary. And, beyond that, it devalues words to use them irresponsibly.
And no, it's not classy. But that's about it.
So his excuse is that he was deceptive because he believed his constituents were to stupid to understand him and that he was to lazy to even read his own newsletter? Not exactly a stellar defense. And to be honest, I find it bit harder to believe.
I'm not framing everything as an abomination. I do think it is awful when people exploit their children. Especially when their efforts make a crazy person look better.
Btw, I've not used repugnant with relation to enhanced interrogation techniques.
:unsure:
The article you gave linked to that Reason article as proof of its thesis. :mellow:
In any event, if the Reason article is bad, how is the newsone article good?
Yes it is. You can spin virtually any ideology into something nasty regardless of whether or not that was the initial intent.
No, it was about Paul's inconsistency. The thesis was that there were a bunch racist rants on his newsletter
Trite. What is your actual opinion?
On what - whether or not Ron Paul is a racist? My opinion is that based on the evidence you've given, there is insufficient evidence. My other opinion is that I'm not sure we're getting the most unbiased coverage from a blog with other articles such as "Top 5 Black Assassinations". My other other opinion is that there are lots of things you could ding libertarianism for without having to resort to such patently stupid arguments as "libertarianism is racist and that's why it appeals to white Southerners".
But by all means, be both loony *and* snarky. It's all you've got, and you've gotta use what you've got.
What part of "insufficient evidence" is unclear to you? I don't buy anything based on the two sources I've seen so far.
If an evil Karl-Rovey-type guy comes up with a huge list of reasons why libertarianism theoretically would hurt black people and then tries to sell libertarianism to racists based on that list, do you really honestly believe that means libertarianism is racist? Or does it just mean that the guy is a slimey spin-master?
I mean - libertarianism sucks, but not because of anything having to do with race. :wacko:
That seems reasonable to me.
You don't buy that there were racist screeds in a news letter published by Ron Paul? Actually, I didn't argue that libertarianism is racist (though some members undoubtedly are), just that the ideas were used to lure in racist Southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks. And yeah, it's was done by slimy spin-masters. Lee Atwater said that's what he was doing when he was doing it.
It does help though, to understand some of the strange inconsistency you find modern Conservatism. Such the idea that hard working people in Red States are supporting lay-abouts on the coast when in fact It's states like California and New York that pay more in federal taxes then they take out and states like Kentucky that pay less in taxes then they get in federal money. Where you have conservatives complain about government spending but jealously guard their own subsidies and pork.
Why? You think it's reasonable to not know what you are publishing? It's not like the guy was a whole publishing house with hundreds of books a month. Someone throws out a bone and says he might not have written all of the things in his own news letter and so the reasonable conclusion is that not only did he not write any of them, he didn't even know about them! That is absurd and strains credulity.
:mellow: It seems reasonable to me to *NOT* want a POTUS who is unaware of hateful things being spread in his name.
That's hardly the top of the list when it comes to reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. :contract:
It's one of the possibilities, which range from "he was unaware" to "he is a hateful racist". I'm not sure we have enough good sources in this thread to know which of the possibilities is most likely to be true.
Well, I suppose it's also a possibility that he's an amnesiac and blanks out every time he reads his own material, or he's a vampire, or a secret communist, or he exists in 38 dimensions at once. However, like the "he was unaware" possibility it doesn't seem very likely.
Actually this reminds of Hortlund claiming that Speer new nothing of Holocaust and no matter how much evidence you present to him, it was never enough. Even when I posted a photo of Speer in one of the camps, it wasn't enough. There was always the possibility he didn't know, and Hortlund hid behind this slim possibility no matter what.
So how would you go about "proving" he knew about what was in his own news letter?
Are all of those equally likely, Raz?
Wow. That is a truly Marti-level analogy. Congratulations.
What adds a special level of thickheadedness to your already bizarre analogy is that I've made no claim that Paul was unaware. I've also made no claim that he is racist. I've made no claim about Paul at all, except to say that since the newsletters exist and have his name attached to them, the possibilities range from "he was unware" to "he was a hateful racist".
The only other argument I have made in this thread is that it is reasonable to not want a POTUS who does not know hateful things are being attached to his name.
Any other arguments you are claiming I've made are of your own invention, Raz.
Whatever sources are necessary for proof they have GOT to be better than the ones you've provided.
Shame we aren't talking about every congressmen, just one. Paul not a stupid man, he's got an eye for details. As Pedantic as he comes off, I find it silly to think that he didn't know what was coming out of own office for years on end.
Fair enough. I will back off the insults if you do the same. I am sure it is possible that I misread "He's an excellent example of how Conservatives have used "libertarianism" and "smaller government" to court the racist vote in the south."
My position is that an accusation of racism in a modern-day politician is a serious one, so in order to make it you'd want to eliminate the possibility that he was unaware insofar as you could do that, and that your sources are insufficient to do that in my opinion. Don't try and read between the lines; it's exactly the position I say it is. Don't put words in my mouth.
That's ridiculous. What the fuck am I hiding from? Your dazzling display of argumentative technique? I'm not voting for Paul, am not a Paul supporter, and don't support his son either.
My guess is irrelevant! Jesus, I hope you never serve on a jury. Based on next-to-no information on the subject in this thread, and possibly some misinformation (the kooky newsone.com article and the Reason article are the first I've ever heard on this topic) there is not enough data to make a good judgment either way. In those cases I like to assume the person is innocent until proven guilty. If a worthy news source published information about these newsletters and Paul's connection to them I'd be more than willing to say "yep, he's a racist". Can you come up with any more credible sources than newsone.com and Reason magazine (which, I remind you, say conflicting things on the matter) that link Paul to the content of these newsletters?
What you call ambiguity I call being sensible. I equally hate jumping to conclusions and half-baked opinions based on poor information and poor logic.
:D :thumbsup:
Yes, I did. They had samples of the newsletters with his name on them form his office. That's pretty good connection if you ask me. The link I posted was the first one I found that had some of that actual newsletters on it (which is why I chose it). The articles weren't conflicting, they were just spun in different ways.
Oh and they don't let me serve on juries for some reason.
Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.
And as if on cue, he has backed away:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9253711-huntsman-tweaks-climate-change-tone-says-scientists-need-to-clarify-facts
So disappointing.
:lol:
:rolleyes:
It's possible he wrote them himself.
It's possible he didn't write them but knew about the contents and allowed them to be published, implying apathy at best and agreement at worst.
It's possible he didn't write them and didn't know they were being published until later. Do we know anything about the circulation of the newsletters?
It's possible he exists in 38 dimensions at once.
For any of these possibilities to bear some fruit, we are going to need better sources than newsone.com and Reason.
That's all.
I haven't been bothered to look for other sources because I'm not the one who accused Paul of racism. :shrug:
I would not read an MSNBC article on what he said and conclude he "back away".
He certainly temporized the message for his audience, but he did not say anything that could fairly be described as backing away.
He just said the glass was half empty for an audience that like half empty glasses instead of saying it was half full. If that is the worst of his pandering I ahve to deal with (and it sadly almost certainly is not), I will consider myself pretty fortunate.
You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea. I provided the blog site primarily because it had copies of the original documents. Those documents seem sufficient to me. To me "The Ron Paul Report" published by Ron Paul is a pretty good connection to Ron Paul.
I have no idea why you get pleasure out of these "debates." Raz isn't reading what you are actually saying, so why bother?
The newsone.com blogger links to the Reason story as "proof" of his assertion of guilt. What lends doubt to the idea is that the Reason article doesn't even say what the newsone.com blogger thinks it says. :mellow:
Okay, what about the primary documents?
Use of first person doesn't prove he wrote it himself.
No, put the "Ron Paul Report" published by Ron Paul is a pretty good connection. Fahdiz asked for a connection.
The primary documents show that the person who wrote the content of those documents was a racist. The nasty, old-school kind, too.
Two questions I have - not for Raz, necessarily, but for the group: do we know the circulation of this newsletter? and are these particular ones different in tone from the content of the newsletter in previous years?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
It's neat to see you make the same mistakes as Raz.
lol
It does make me wonder a little about your reasoning process, though. I mean - I know his excuse. What's yours?
Excuse for what? Drive-by dumping in a thread?
:)
You have a limited point, I am crazy. You will never really appreciate concreteness until you've had a conversation with someone was never actually there.
They aren't as fun as you'd think.
Agree with this.
It is legit for Paul to say he delegated this to nutjobs and that didn't keep track of what they were doing for years and years.
That may get him off the hook for racism but that kind of supervisory incompetence is pretty damaging for someone who wants to be President of the United States.
We are going to find out Tim has been working as his science adviser.
THEN ON TO KOLOB!!!!!
His new ad has more dislikes on YouTube than Rebecca Black's horrid Friday song and it's only been out for 2 days. I don't think so. It's so transparently desperate that even the true Evangelicals will see through it.
Your grasp of politics is approaching the same level of quality as Tim's grasp of history.
Well, that's going below the belt, even by Languish standards.
He disabled the like/dislike function on his official video, so people re-hosted the video so that they could dislike it. The problem with his video is not only that it is bigoted and homophobic, it is not factual. Well, the one fact he gets right is that DADT has been ended so men who suck cock can shoot mooselimbs. Kids can pray in school, what the constitution bans is government employees leading prayers in their official capacity.
The sheer stupidity is amazing.
Anyone who hated his video that much wasn't going to vote for him anyway.
These were not Ron Paul's congressional newsletter. They were a series of newsletters published by various organizations with which Ron Paul was associated.
Here's the original article from The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
In it, Kirchick notes that "[t]he Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984." He also notes that "[Christopher] Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."" Caldwell is a Paul supporter, though, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. Kirchick concludes that "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics." Clearly not a fan, but his conclusions seem to be in line with those of others who have seen the actual newsletter.
I think the issue of just who Ron Paul is is more than a bit interesting. Some people find it hard to debate the topic rationally, but I think the topic can be debated rationally if everyone simply ignores Raz's "contributions."
Nah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.
And by "Paul" I mean this carcicature of Paul that includes everything as nutty and crazy about him as possible, no matter what the reality might actually entail.
Please stop trolling.
It's grumbler...
I'm not sure I admire consistency. Especially not when the consistently held ideas are bad.
What good ideas is Ron Paul bring to the table?
Yes, I know, but I do grow tired of his drive by shitting.
In addition I think his campaign in 2008 has since shaped the Republican party in two ways, one negative and one, I think, quite positive. The negative is that I think he infected Republican discourse on the economy with anti-Fed, Gold Standard silliness - I think that's now reflected in the support he got for his audit the Fed campaign (previously a lonely endeavour he shared with Bernie Sanders) but also in comments about the Fed in the debates and what Perry said. The postive I think is that his brand of isolationism has reinvigorated a more conservative foreign policy. Huntsman's indicative of this. They may not want to pull out of everywhere as Paul does but basically support scaling back the wars and not starting any new ones.
You may not like Democrats saying Paul's a legitimate voice of the GOP (though an eccentric one: anti-war, anti-torture, isolationist eve on Israel, fine with the gays, loving the gold standard) but I think he is. Just as much as Jesse Jackson once was in the Democrats.
No he can't, because once the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas, they'll realize how incredibly batshit insane they actually are.
Don't let Princesca hear that. She has a serious moist spot for Ron and Rand.
Name one good idea Kucinich has ever had.
Ron Paul is very sincere about the deficit and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim. His gold standard nonsense has to go though.
No, I really don't think you would.
And his Libertarian fascism to health care is a dead end. You have the right to die even if you don't want to, and we have a right to make you exercise that right, is a bit much.
Be a bit more specific.
Yeah, you would. You'd follow anyone who said "deficit reduction". Why are you so obsessed with that?
Nah, the reason it has legs is because Paul is, in many ways, the most important catalyst for the formation of the Tea Party. Thus, I am interested in discovering more about who he was and what he said and thought before he started to really make news in the 2008 election cycle. These newsletter seem to shed some light on the topic.
We do?
What, is there two of you now?
So again - he's not really legit then?
Creating a Department of Peace and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, that Mexican dude, and Obama.
Also voting against the Iraq War. Apparently he did a good job in Cleveland, not for the Mob though.
Free Market Drug Act.
Tell me more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE
My point was that at least some of these guys and gals do put innovative ideas out there, things that actually address issues. Something that more mainstream pols don't do, since they go along to get along, take baby steps and fear angering anyone. Gingrich is one with innovative ideas and not so much the nutty stuff. He expresses views and ideas that are sweeping changes, and isn't afraid to go against the grain of usual politics. In time that will ruffle people more but he has some good ideas.
Take Romney, Perry, and most others. They have ideas but nothing paticularly sweeping. Cain had his 9-9-9 plan. That wouldn't likely have passed as is but he was pushing a flat tax, Federal sales tax while eliminating many other taxes to make up for it. Innovative ideas that at least get us talking outside the box, food for thought to look at some issues differently.
The fact that he declares that one of the major problems is "there is no competition" in the healthcare industry tells me all I need to know about what he knows about the healthcare industry.
Thing is, our government and the political process it runs on, by its very nature is not amenable to "innovative" ideas. It's the nation's largest bureaucracy, the largest corporation. You just don't introduce novel and new concepts to an established machine; it just doesn't work that way. You make the machine, and the way it works, achieve the results you need.
That's why "Washington Insiders", for all their faults, usually get things done to a much greater degree than the "Washington Outsiders".
There is an element of truth in that, for sure. A lot of people have climbed on the Tea Party bandwagon who could never live with Paul's indifference to personal choices, but the fiscal conservatism (maybe better described as reactionary conservatism) is still pretty much where Ron Paul started out.
Not nearly so much is left of Lincoln in the Republican Party as a whole.
None of them will win the presidency.
I don't mind them saying he is THAT voice at all.
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
Of course, "racism" as a political concept has not existed in US politics in a generation, but why let that stop you? It is so juicy and exciting! Oh, Paul is going after the KKK vote!
:lol: Like it isn't.
Have you seen the studies estimating Obama lost 5% of the vote in 2008 for being black?
Are there any studies on how much he gained from being black?
I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it one more time: sometimes people mean what they say, and don't have any hidden motives. There is no need to play a game of Kremlinology with my words, I'm not really that complicated.
Now, now. They hate a lot of white people too.
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
No, cannot say that I have.
But even if it is true, that doesn't address my point, and if anything disproves DGullers rather bizarre claim that most racists are Republicans. After all, if they are all Republicans, they aren't voting for Obama no matter what color he is, because he is a Dem. So if millions of people are refusing to vote for him because he is black, they must be people who would have voted for him otherwise.
And what do we call those people? Democrats. Or independents, at least.
But my point you are responding to is simply that "racism" is not a political concept, and has not been for decades. Nobody runs on the racism platform, there is no defined body of voters who are racists and vote as a bloc of any kind at all.
There are still lots of racists out there of course. But the idea that they are concentrated in one party or another is laughable. DG supposed "rigor" when it comes to statistical analysis is right up there with Marty's expertise in US law when he tosses out completely unsupported claims like that.
OK, lets see the stats that show that most racists are Republicans. Lets see the study, the statistical analysis, the reasoning for why we should accept your claim that this is true.
Here is what I know, although it is rather weak evidence, being based on personal experience only. I know personally very few people who I would consider to hold racist views. In fact, prior to moving to upstate New York, I didn't really know any.
But since moving here, I run into people every now and again who think nothing of saying something like "That nigger Obama..." and then some stupid shit about whatever. Or just bitching about black people, or immigrants in general. And you know what? They are all middle class, union card carrying members of the Democratic Party, like most everyone in my wife's family demographic. Now, not everyone in my wife's rather large family is like that of course, but everyone in my wife's family IS a democrat.
The idea that one party has some kind of monopoly or even lions share of the "racist vote" is ridiculous. You pulled that straight out of your ass based on idiotic stereotypes, probably about Southerners in general is my guess.
Extensive and exhaustive? How about non-existensive and cursory? Got any of those kinds of studies?
You know what people who are not driven by faith and ignorance do when they have "limited information"? They only draw limited conclusions. Those don't include treasures like "ZOMG the racists all flocked to the Republicans!" because they want it to be true.
In other words, no, you don't have any reason to believe that beyond that you want it to be true. As expected.
We can see just how "rigorous" your demand for actual evidence is when it comes to your politics.
I've already voiced that I'm blacker in the cultural sense. :smarty:
The difference between me and you is I am not trying to draw general conclusions from my particular experiences. My personal experience simply makes me think "Wow, I had no idea there were so many casually racist people around, that is really rather disturbing, especially since these are actually pretty decent people...".
I don't try to shoe-horn those observations into my political or personal agenda though. I make no probabilistic prediction based on my experiences, hence cannot possibly be committing the fallacy. YOU however, are doing exactly that.
I am sure you don't. But that is fine - the bigger point has been made. Just another datum of how DG is so ready to suspend any kind of critical analysis when it comes to slandering Republicans.
No, I don't think racism is a political force - meaning that I don't think there is a racist voting block, or that either party does much of anything to court racists (secretly or otherwise) or that traditionally racial issues are meaningful anymore. The good guys won, and racism to the extent that it still exists is not coherent enough to be a political variable that can be manipulated by anyone. There is no racist bloc that goes with one party that they see as catering to them in the manner DG is claiming.
There are a bunch of racists out there almost certainly. Plenty of what I call "casually racist" who would be offended to be referred to as racist, but at the same time when they are comfortable around family have no qualms making nigger jokes, or bitching about spics, or whatever. They aren't running around in sheets at night though, and they certainly don't make political decisions based on their views on race in the manner someone who is pro-life does, or pro-union, or such.
I most certainly think race is a factor in US politics. I would bet if anything it helped Obama get elected though, rather than hurt him. I think the exact same politician who was white with the same message and same experience, never even gets a nomination much less wins. Hell, probably would not even consider running for that matter.
That isn't such a bad thing though, it was about time we elected someone who is not a white, male Christian.
No, sadly it is not. What is full of shit is you making claims like "The Republicans picked up the racist vote". It is so full of shit on so many levels it isn't even funny. The fact that you know you cannot back it up at all is kind of funny though, and your pretense that suddenly you are too bust to post and defend such a moronic claim is downright hilarious.
Yeah, I don't believe you. You don't have time because you know that all the time in the world won't make your claim sound anymore rational. You know as well as everyone else that you are completely full of shit.
What is really amusing is that I bet you don't even see the rather obvious parallel between the way you look at the hated Republicans and are perfectly willing to just make up crap to believe about them no matter how unsupported or outlandish, and how traditional racists looked at whatever "other" they hated. It is all the same root cause...
Froth? I am not the one slinging about accusations of racism DG. You are the one doing all the frothing here.
But good luck on your exam in any case.
If you had been following the discussion you'd see that the race card was played. Not by us, but by Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and possibly Ron Paul. I'm not portraying Ron Paul as the face of conservatism. Perhaps the libertarian wing of the GOP but not the GOP as a whole. In fact, I think the libertarian wing is quite weak.
The discussion has been how much was connected to his own series of news letters. The news letters had racist language in them and had racist themes. Nobody has denied that. The question has been about how much Ron Paul had to do with them. Dguller and I thought he had a lot to do with them, while some have suggested that these nasty news letters were essentially written behind his back.
I will provide you with something that may help. This is more about "Tea Party" rather then "Republican", but there is great deal of overlap, so it's a starting point.
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html
So you don't have either studies or anecdotal evidence to back your claim, yet you feel confident in it anyway. :hmm:
You cannot blame the guy for his faith!
The ones that the Democrats dumped, yes, for the most part (I don't see a lot of independent racists; that's not how they work). The Democrats only dumped a portion of their racists, though.
I don't think the Republicans are racist, personally. And I think you're probably right about blue collar casual racism. It's certainly true in this country the majority of people who switch to vote BNP are Labour voters and I don't necessarily think they're actually all bigots I think a lot of them are basically sold a lot of bullshit by the BNP.
What I don't get though is why many Republicans never seem to want to work out why minority groups don't vote for them. I don't think it's just because they're too busy enjoying being 'victims' and looking for affirmative action'. I think there's a tone of debate about these issues that would make many potential Republican voters back away - the idea from one Republican candidate of having a electrified fence on the US-Mexico border, for example.
And in terms of racism in politics now I think it'll be dog-whistle, deniable stuff like Newt Gingrich's phrase that Obama's a 'food-stamp President'. I don't know if Gingrich is in any way racist but I think that sort of line is clearly dog-whistle politics and, if he gets called on it, Gingrich can react like Captain Reynaud and win sympathy from some as a victim of the 'race card' being played on him.
My personal experience is that almost everyone has some racists thoughts, beliefs, or sentiments; whether or not they admit it even to themselves. And there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so I'd have to say that there are more racists Democrats than racist Republicans. OTOH, as best as I can tell, the Republican party is narrowing the registration gap, so I guess that it would be accurate to say that racists have been moving from the Democratic party to the Republican party--except that (again, as best as I can tell) the Republicans haven't been gaining in registration, just narrowing the gap because the Democrats have been losing registered voters to the independent ranks moreso than the Republicans. So the overall conclusion is that more and more racists are abandoning the 2 dominant parties to join the independent ranks.
OK, a lot of that was tongue-in-cheek. But overall, I agree with Berkut--I don't think that blatantly racists can really find much comfort in either party.
I don't think that blacks, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. But I also don't think that whites, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. That makes me either a cynic or misanthrope, not a racist.
The interesting part of that article is that if you actually look at the data (ignoring for the moment the rather bizarre intent of the study), you will find that it turns out that nearly everyone is "racist" by the definition of the study authors.
Most studies find what they set out to find. Set out to find racists, you'll find racism everywhere. Set out to find tolerance, well, you won't find it everywhere, but you will find it to be fairly common in the West.
Bizarre intent? This is exactly what you asked for. Please elaborate on your statement.
No, it isn't. A study that purports to show that Tea Party people have more intolerant view points than the general population (but only by some marginal amount - turns out that apaprently 70% of the general white population is 'racist' in the studies view that someone who says black people should work harder is racist) has zero bearing on whether Republicans "got all the racists" as DG claims.
I sure as hell am not going to be put in the position of defending the Tea Party people.
What do you suppose the overlap between Republican and Tea Party is? There is a Tea party Caucus, what is the percentage of Democrats to Republicans in that caucus?
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
If you are Marty or Takei then it does... all ghey men think all homophobes are secretly ghey.
:yes:
Sideburns too. And jeans.
Having dudes come over and have sex with you in the Texas Capital building while your assitants are supposed to not notice does though.
Touche.
eh, did I miss something?
I don't know. Do you work in the Texas State Capital?
I have spoken to several eye witnesses. Also: Lt. Governor David Dewhurst likes to have sex with the female employees on his private jet.
Elaborate...
Is publishing off-the-record info on Languish a breach of ethics or not? :hmm:
Only if I reported names or got specific :P
It really doesn't matter if you believe Perry is gay or not. His candidacy speaks for itself.
OH COME ON!
You can't drop a turd on my carpet and then not explain why!
You can't insinuate that a homophobe loves to suck cock and then shut up.
What do you want from me? Besides it is not like it just me who says this.
Ok what more would need to be said? :P
Explain what you meant; that is what I want from you.
Rick Perry fellates penises till they ejaculate in his mouth. Clear enough?
What, do you need a picture? The Net is vast.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you couldn't just leave an insinuation that that. That's pretty standard OP in such situations for Republican homophobes who turn out to be self-loathing gays.
The question is about the amount of corroboration, not the act.
If Valmy's friend said he saw Perry buttseksing someone, then we only need to examine the friend's credibility. If he saw something other than a sex act, we need to examine both the logic of the inference and the credibility.
Big republican and religious lady who was burning with indignation, so not really a friend of mine. Telling us all not to vote for him because of his immoral blah blah.
But really Yi does it matter so much we need to examine it? The problem with Perry is he is corrupt, a terrible governor, and a terrible campaigner. Why do we need to focus on what is, in any case, just an amusing rumor and anecdote?
I agree with Viking. If you bring up that a friend of yours was an eye witness to Perry's manmanlove, then don't give details, that's a cock tease.
That sounds like a good bet on Gringrich. Rogue poll? The previous two had Romney trailing Paul (and Perry in one)
Iowa and NH are so vital for momentum I do not think polls outside of those states matter too much before they take place. I mean they matter a little bit but not too much.
Huntsman - 74.9%
Gingrich - 58.1%
Paul - 56.7%
Romney - 53.1%
Perry - 49.3%
Santorum - 43.9%
Bachmann - 43.3%
A good thing Cain's out of the race. I'm not sure he could master the rules. :P
Repub primaries start in Jan and end in June. :D
Perry remembers that there is rock and paper but he can't quite remember the last one. He thinks it might be EPA.
:D
Wish I'd thought of that.
I would vote for 3 out of 4 of those historical figures. If you can guess who I wouldn't vote for, you win nothing.
Isn't it a colonelcy?
Red squiggly lines agree with me. :yes:
Gingrich's numbers appear to be dropping in multiple polls, so it's possible he has peaked and is on his way down. Gingrich has been getting heavily attacked as the front runner. Most of the mainstream conservative voices are very anti-Gingrich and have been really vocal the past two weeks. The National Review(an influential conservative magazine) ran an anti-Gingrich editorial this week. Romney's surrogates having been going negative. Gingrich has been facing a lot of negative ads from multiple sources in Iowa. The narrative appears to be that Gingrich is on his way down and I think that's reflected in the Intrade numbers. Of course, it's definitely possible that Intrade traders have over-compensated and Gingrich is under-valued at this point.
He did build some impressive baths.
Killed while taking a leak. DISQUALIFIED.
The one ranting was either Paul or his ghost writer. Not me.
I didn't know how he was killed. All I knew was he considered one of the bad emperors, he built some baths and was assassinated.
He is one of the biggest A-holes ever. He had his brother murdered in front of their mother at a meeting mother had set up to get them to agree to get along better.
And was killed while taking a leak.
After building some baths.
lulz, Mitt's my man.
So, you're saying he's Al Gore with a mean streak.
Too busy updating his blog and giving neo-conservative PPT presentations when neo-conservatism's out of style.
I guess by that token - I'm the Queen of the Night.
No, he's more like what Al Gore would be if Gore was actually as smart as he thinks he is.
That said, I don't think Gingrich really has a first-rate intellect--I don't think that any current or recent major American political figure has. Gingrich has a second-rate intellect, but about a fourth-rate temperment. Gore has about a third-rate temperment and a fourth-rate intellect--which still makes him smarter than most political figures.
Yes. And IMO, he's smarter than Gore.
So translated from GOPtard speak to English you are saying Gore had a 1st rate intellect and Newt had a 4th rate intellect.
(People who get this joke: me, Neil, maybe Buddha.)
Oh, please. He was unbanned before he even finished sleeping off his drunk.
AND FUCK YOU ABOUT THAT BMOLSSON SHOT I SAW THAT
#3 stab wound? Isn't one enough?
Don't walk away from your greatest triumph. I'd have given you the grumbler point for that if I hadn't already awarded it.
Bmo made some good posts. Some of them were garbled if you chose to read them uncharitably, but almost everything he posted made sense.
He did, actually.
I know mine was "Apostate Boy", but it seems like we're pretty past that now.
Dump Truck and Outhouse. I think you had a third which I forgot.
I'm glad he's history. He added nothing here.
No. Yi nicknames do not sound like WWF (fuck the WWE) artistnames.
If you had they didn't stick.
They often only make sense to him.
Ya, i've gotten worse lately. i'm betting on a brain tumor.
Question: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President?
Option 1: 
U.S. Representative from Minnesota Michele Bachmann
votes: 3
U.S. Representative from Minnesota Michele Bachmann
votes: 3
Option 2: 
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
votes: 5
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
votes: 5
Option 3: 
Former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman
votes: 4
Former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman
votes: 4
Option 4: 
Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson
votes: 1
Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson
votes: 1
Option 5: 
Political Consultant & Gay Rights Activist Fred Karger
votes: 2
Political Consultant & Gay Rights Activist Fred Karger
votes: 2
Option 6: 
Andy Martin
votes: 0
Andy Martin
votes: 0
Option 7: 
Jimmy McMillan
votes: 6
Jimmy McMillan
votes: 6
Option 8: 
Career Flight Attendant Tom Miller
votes: 0
Career Flight Attendant Tom Miller
votes: 0
Option 9: 
U.S. Representative from the State of Texas Ron Paul
votes: 1
U.S. Representative from the State of Texas Ron Paul
votes: 1
Option 10: 
Current Governor of Texas Rick Perry
votes: 0
Current Governor of Texas Rick Perry
votes: 0
Option 11: 
Former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer
votes: 2
Former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer
votes: 2
Option 12: 
Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney
votes: 13
Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney
votes: 13
Option 13: 
Former US Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum
votes: 0
Former US Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum
votes: 0
Option 14: 
Matt Snyder
votes: 0
Matt Snyder
votes: 0
Option 15: 
Businessman Vern Wuensche
votes: 1
Businessman Vern Wuensche
votes: 1
Option 16: Cain-Jaron 2012 
Businessman, Politician & Media Herman Cain
votes: 4
Businessman, Politician & Media Herman Cain
votes: 4
Title: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 03, 2011, 08:24:54 PM
Post by: Viking on December 03, 2011, 08:24:54 PM
Sorry 'bout the Buddy Roemer pic, that's how big it is where I got it and I don't know how to scale images.
Well, vote away.
Well, vote away.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 03, 2011, 08:28:41 PM
Post by: dps on December 03, 2011, 08:28:41 PM
Maybe it would be best if you asked a mod or admin to delete the pics and just leave the names and links, if they have the ability to do that. Or just delete the thread and start over without the pics.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 08:29:48 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 08:29:48 PM
What's the point of adding all those nobodies?
Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul are the only ones with a chance of breaking double digits.
Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul are the only ones with a chance of breaking double digits.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 08:31:18 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 08:31:18 PM
Anyways, as to the point I've changed my vote (for now) to Gingrich.
I think he benefits a lot from Cain dropping out.
I think he benefits a lot from Cain dropping out.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 03, 2011, 08:33:43 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 03, 2011, 08:33:43 PM
I voted for Gingrich. Mitt has a ceiling that won't go anywhere, and Gingrich seems to be the winner of the game of musical chairs for the position of being anti-Romney.
P.S. Not sure if attaching ten pics of nobodies was meant to be an attempt at a joke, but it just creates unbelievable clutter. No need for that pointless bullshit.
P.S. Not sure if attaching ten pics of nobodies was meant to be an attempt at a joke, but it just creates unbelievable clutter. No need for that pointless bullshit.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2011, 08:39:30 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2011, 08:39:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 08:29:48 PM
Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul are the only ones with a chance of breaking double digits.
Pretty sure Bachman has polled double digits in past polls.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2011, 08:43:05 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2011, 08:43:05 PM
How come Martin, McMillan and Snyder don't have descriptions? How are we supposed to evaluate their chances without knowing who they are?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 03, 2011, 08:47:00 PM
Post by: Habbaku on December 03, 2011, 08:47:00 PM
Viking fails at making poll; film at 11.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 03, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 03, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
I like the idea of a career flight attendant as president, but Roemer's meganoggin convinced me he is the right man at the right time.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2011, 08:51:12 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2011, 08:51:12 PM
Roehmer's platform for wanting to lynch Wall Street is appealing, but offset by his platform for wanting to lynch niggers.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 08:54:09 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 08:54:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 03, 2011, 08:33:43 PM
I voted for Gingrich. Mitt has a ceiling that won't go anywhere, and Gingrich seems to be the winner of the game of musical chairs for the position of being anti-Romney.
P.S. Not sure if attaching ten pics of nobodies was meant to be an attempt at a joke, but it just creates unbelievable clutter. No need for that pointless bullshit.
This is the GOP. Pointless bullshit is par for the course.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2011, 09:04:11 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2011, 09:04:11 PM
The pics are awesome Puff. Don't let the haters get to you.
Based on the pics I'm ditching Obama and voting Vern. Our country needs a stroke victim in the Oval Office.
Based on the pics I'm ditching Obama and voting Vern. Our country needs a stroke victim in the Oval Office.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 09:06:18 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2011, 08:39:30 PMIn the spring. Doesn't look like she'll do anything now.Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 08:29:48 PM
Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul are the only ones with a chance of breaking double digits.
Pretty sure Bachman has polled double digits in past polls.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 09:34:16 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2011, 09:04:11 PM
The pics are awesome Puff. Don't let the haters get to you.
Based on the pics I'm ditching Obama and voting Vern. Our country needs a stroke victim in the Oval Office.
Wilson is making a comeback.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 03, 2011, 09:54:04 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 03, 2011, 09:54:04 PM
Only Jimmy McMillan is actually looking to his right. The others are obviously left-looking RINOs or center-looking flip-floppers.
Pictures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Policies.
Pictures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Policies.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2011, 09:59:29 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2011, 09:59:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2011, 09:54:04 PM
Only Jimmy McMillan is actually looking to his right. The others are obviously left-looking RINOs or center-looking flip-floppers.
Pictures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Policies.
His head is tilted towards his right, but his eyes are focused towards his left. Clearly you can't trust him.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 03, 2011, 10:38:45 PM
Post by: Neil on December 03, 2011, 10:38:45 PM
<------------
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 03, 2011, 10:39:47 PM
Post by: Habbaku on December 03, 2011, 10:39:47 PM
---------->
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 01:55:22 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 01:55:22 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscratch.mit.edu%2Fstatic%2Fprojects%2Fsam95%2F458818_med.png&hash=360e21d61cb824209788b7427cd3ea721cbdb424)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 04, 2011, 02:57:21 AM
Post by: The Brain on December 04, 2011, 02:57:21 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FAnschluss.jpg&hash=a56c4641f5fb41e87a662bfe29071e52df2c715f)
Voted Buddy Roemer.
Voted Buddy Roemer.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: 11B4V on December 04, 2011, 10:55:36 AM
Post by: 11B4V on December 04, 2011, 10:55:36 AM
The guy with the angry negro syndrome
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticks.org%2FPRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES%2Fimages%2Fcandidates%2F2012%2FJimmy-McMillan.gif&hash=871de27ccde6e8937d07ded489613ff2407a54f9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticks.org%2FPRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES%2Fimages%2Fcandidates%2F2012%2FJimmy-McMillan.gif&hash=871de27ccde6e8937d07ded489613ff2407a54f9)
QuoteThe exquisitely bearded 64-year old ex-postal worker is no stranger to controversies, and seems to have quite a knack of attracting the attention of the media. Discounting his bridge-climbing agility, pseudo self-immolation and hit rap single featuring the 'Rent Is Too Damn High Party' theme song (available in iTunes), McMillan does carry one very important point that resonates with plenty of average Americans – the rent is indeed, too damn high.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
That guy does have a cool beard hair style combo.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: 11B4V on December 04, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
Post by: 11B4V on December 04, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticks.org%2FPRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES%2Fimages%2Fcandidates%2F2012%2FTom-Miller.gif&hash=31663f99e9a88e3832f21130192f8b0cab997afd)
Peter puffer
Quotebeen a career flight attendant for the last 23 years.
Peter puffer
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 11:23:32 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 11:23:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 10:59:30 AM
That guy does have a cool beard hair style combo.
They can do such neat things with their hair.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Josquius on December 04, 2011, 07:22:11 PM
Post by: Josquius on December 04, 2011, 07:22:11 PM
I too support the crazy hair guy.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if he turned out to be a coin worthy president?- purely for his looks of course.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if he turned out to be a coin worthy president?- purely for his looks of course.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Monoriu on December 05, 2011, 04:04:48 AM
Post by: Monoriu on December 05, 2011, 04:04:48 AM
I for one think that the pics are very well done :)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 05, 2011, 08:50:09 AM
Post by: garbon on December 05, 2011, 08:50:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 05, 2011, 04:04:48 AM
I for one think that the pics are very well done :)
Because they all come from the same website?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
Post by: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
I still think it's Jon-Benet Romney in end.
Gringrich just ran to make money. He is shitting bricks now that he is in the lead. This wasn't supposed to happen! lol.
Gringrich just ran to make money. He is shitting bricks now that he is in the lead. This wasn't supposed to happen! lol.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PM
Post by: Viking on December 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
I still think it's Romnet in end.
Gringrich just ran to make money. He is shitting bricks now that he is in the lead. This wasn't supposed to happen! lol.
I'm thinking he might have run to be the smartest guy on stage on national tv.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 05:59:35 PM
Post by: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PMQuote from: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
I still think it's Romnet in end.
Gringrich just ran to make money. He is shitting bricks now that he is in the lead. This wasn't supposed to happen! lol.
I'm thinking he might have run to be the smartest guy on stage on national tv.
TV Show-Books and a Newt GI Joe line.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:01:57 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PMThat's why he's doing some sort of interview with Trump.
I'm thinking he might have run to be the smartest guy on stage on national tv.
I think we'll see a Huntsman surge story soon. He's up to 11% in New Hampshire and I think he could start eating into Romney's vote there. If the impression is that Romney's finished then why should anyone settle for him.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 05, 2011, 06:31:05 PM
Post by: Viking on December 05, 2011, 06:31:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:01:57 PMQuote from: Viking on December 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PMThat's why he's doing some sort of interview with Trump.
I'm thinking he might have run to be the smartest guy on stage on national tv.
I think we'll see a Huntsman surge story soon. He's up to 11% in New Hampshire and I think he could start eating into Romney's vote there. If the impression is that Romney's finished then why should anyone settle for him.
And your suggestion is that those who were settling from Romney would settle for Huntsman?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 06:37:25 PM
Post by: Habsburg on December 05, 2011, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:01:57 PMQuote from: Viking on December 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PMThat's why he's doing some sort of interview with Trump.
I'm thinking he might have run to be the smartest guy on stage on national tv.
I think we'll see a Huntsman surge story soon. He's up to 11% in New Hampshire and I think he could start eating into Romney's vote there. If the impression is that Romney's finished then why should anyone settle for him.
I wish, big Hunstman supporter. He won't go anywhere. :(
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 05, 2011, 06:42:26 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 05, 2011, 06:42:26 PM
Yeah, Huntsman is non-starter. To moderate and to Mormon.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:43:52 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:43:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 05, 2011, 06:31:05 PMAnd your suggestion is that those who were settling from Romney would settle for Huntsman?I think that the independent moderate leaning voter in states like New Hampshire will possibly look at Romney just flailing and they'll say if we're going to go for a management consultant, relatively pragmatic, permatanned, wealthy Mormon Governor, then why not for the one who embraces that? I think Romney could easily lose the 'moderate' vote.
I'd also note that the editor of Red State's tweeted that he's reconsidering Huntsman and has since written him up as actually pretty reliably conservative and anti-crony capitalist, all of which is true. By contrast only 20-something percent of Republicans think Romney is a conservative.
I think Huntsman - whose campaign is run by the same people who ran John McCain's in 2000 - could get a surge. What he's done is be moderate in tone and emphasise his McKinsey style pragmatic governorship which appeals to the sort of vote Romney should have locked down. But at the same time Huntsman was a pragmatic governor who worked with Democrats in Utah, which makes him far more conservative than Romney - or probably several other candidates. If he can draw attention to that record in his sensible, moderate tone then I think he can basically become what Romney was meant to be - and perhaps would have been had he had any core identity.
That may not happen, of course. But the sense I get is that no-one really wants Romney, not even his base. Huntsman seems to me the sort of candidate who could do well in New Hampshire and if Romney fades there's no-one else who can take on Newt/whoever else as tribune of the country club.
Edit: Another example from just tonight. Huntsman has had a go at Donald Trump moderating a Republican debate (seriously?) as 'business over substance' and said 'I'm not going to kiss his ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy' - admittedly I think this was because him and Ron Paul weren't invited by Donald Trump (Donald Trump!) because they weren't sufficiently serious candidates.
But I think that attitude could appeal to the sort of Republican who feels this has all got a bit close to a reality TV show. Especially when compared with Romney who will leap through any hoop to get the nomination.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM
If Huntsman wants to be taken seriously he'll have to explain his wacky first name.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM
If Huntsman wants to be taken seriously he'll have to explain his wacky first name.
Why, because no H?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Why, because no H?
Yup.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:51:47 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 06:51:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM:lol:
If Huntsman wants to be taken seriously he'll have to explain his wacky first name.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
He's actually the best by far of the Republican crew. I love "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Naturally, this will mean he cannot possibly get the nomination.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 06:54:46 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:49:50 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Why, because no H?
Yup.
You've seen common Mormon first names, right? He lucked right the fuck out, IMO.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:59:40 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:59:40 PM
Speaking of magic pants, have the Osmonds said who they're endorsing yet?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 07:01:23 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 05, 2011, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 06:53:46 PMI think his 'did you hear what I just said? ... The President is Commander in Chief' line in one of the debates was very good and needed to be said. I also think that if he does well that'll be seen as the turning point in his campaign.
He's actually the best by far of the Republican crew. I love "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Naturally, this will mean he cannot possibly get the nomination.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 07:12:18 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 07:12:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:59:40 PM
Speaking of magic pants, have the Osmonds said who they're endorsing yet?
With not one but two Mormons in the race, I bet they think they've died and gone to Kolob.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 07:18:42 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 07:18:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM
If Huntsman wants to be taken seriously he'll have to explain his wacky first name.
And what the fuck kind of name is "Mitt," anyway?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: AnchorClanker on December 05, 2011, 07:22:09 PM
Post by: AnchorClanker on December 05, 2011, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 07:18:42 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM
If Huntsman wants to be taken seriously he'll have to explain his wacky first name.
And what the fuck kind of name is "Mitt," anyway?
Middle name. First name is Willard.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 05, 2011, 07:29:15 PM
Post by: Viking on December 05, 2011, 07:29:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 07:18:42 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:47:17 PM
If Huntsman wants to be taken seriously he'll have to explain his wacky first name.
And what the fuck kind of name is "Mitt," anyway?
It's a name that is not as bad as Newt.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Caliga on December 05, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
Post by: Caliga on December 05, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:49:50 PMHis grandfather was a big Garfield fan.Quote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Why, because no H?
Yup.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Maximus on December 05, 2011, 08:16:07 PM
Post by: Maximus on December 05, 2011, 08:16:07 PM
Jon is short for Jonathan. I don't see what's unusual about it. :unsure:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: AnchorClanker on December 05, 2011, 08:17:32 PM
Post by: AnchorClanker on December 05, 2011, 08:17:32 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 05, 2011, 08:16:07 PM
Jon is short for Jonathan. I don't see what's unusual about it. :unsure:
I don't think Jonathan is his borth name, though. I think it's actually Jon. Oh well, no big deal in any case.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 05, 2011, 08:17:32 PMQuote from: Maximus on December 05, 2011, 08:16:07 PM
Jon is short for Jonathan. I don't see what's unusual about it. :unsure:
I don't think Jonathan is his borth name, though. I think it's actually Jon. Oh well, no big deal in any case.
I'm telling you, he's lucky his name's not Thummim or Nimrod.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Caliga on December 05, 2011, 10:21:37 PM
Post by: Caliga on December 05, 2011, 10:21:37 PM
Are unusual Mormon first names really the norm? I don't know many Mormons, but I have a distant cousin who is Mormon and his name is Steve. My mother in law worked for a Mormon guy for a while, and his name was Jack (and his wife was named Jill, srsly).
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 10:36:38 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 05, 2011, 10:21:37 PM
Are unusual Mormon first names really the norm?
I've met some with "normal" names and some with pretty obscure biblical names. I wouldn't say it's the norm, no, but given what it could have been, complaining about "Jon" seems a bit overwrought.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 11:47:18 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 11:47:18 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 10:15:43 PMQuote from: AnchorClanker on December 05, 2011, 08:17:32 PMQuote from: Maximus on December 05, 2011, 08:16:07 PM
Jon is short for Jonathan. I don't see what's unusual about it. :unsure:
I don't think Jonathan is his borth name, though. I think it's actually Jon. Oh well, no big deal in any case.
I'm telling you, he's lucky his name's not Thummim or Nimrod.
Well, if he's willing to eradicate the mutant menace, I may have to consider voting for him.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 11:48:00 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 05, 2011, 11:48:00 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
Xavier's rich too. Two for one.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Syt on December 06, 2011, 12:04:26 AM
Post by: Syt on December 06, 2011, 12:04:26 AM
I'd give McMillan my vote for this most excellent beard combined with the annoyed facial expression.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 12:06:46 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
Xavier's rich too. Two for one.
Talk about campaign finance reform!
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 12:26:10 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 12:26:10 PM
I thought Yi was making a joke on how outlandish Jon is in a field with Newt, Herman, Mitt (or Willard) and Barack. Didn't know Mormons went in for odd names though, I thought they'd be kind of Old Testament.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 12:29:16 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 12:26:10 PM
I thought Yi was making a joke on how outlandish Jon is in a field with Newt, Herman, Mitt (or Willard) and Barack. Didn't know Mormons went in for odd names though, I thought they'd be kind of Old Testament.
They're like the Old Testament names no one uses. "This is my son, Lot". That sort of thing.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2011, 12:33:55 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2011, 12:33:55 PM
I work with a guy named Noah and one of my bartenders is named Seth.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2011, 02:47:34 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2011, 02:47:34 PM
Ron Paul comes out swinging.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 03:26:26 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2011, 12:33:55 PM
I work with a guy named Noah and one of my bartenders is named Seth.
If I ever have a male kid, I'm gonna name him Chaim or Noach. Love that voiceless uvular fricative.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 06, 2011, 03:34:08 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 06, 2011, 03:34:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2011, 02:47:34 PMI'm going to cut $20,000 from my expenses this year. I'll double-fold my toilet paper instead of triple-folding it before wiping, I'll buy antibiotic-full eggs instead of organic, etc., etc. And that's just in the first year! :w00t:
Ron Paul comes out swinging.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 03:39:33 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 03:39:33 PM
I like Ron Paul :blush:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 06, 2011, 03:41:13 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 06, 2011, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 03:39:33 PMI liked him too, until he turned from being a protest candidate to being a candidate taken seriously, and a candidate whose ideas zombify countless youths. Then he and his cult started really, really scaring me, mainly due to their limitless ability to completely ignore the reality.
I like Ron Paul :blush:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 03:41:23 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 03:41:23 PM
I like Ron Paul the best of the Republicans. He's not evil, only mad.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 04:07:25 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 03:39:33 PM
I like Ron Paul :blush:
"Is likeable" and "would make a good president" are, as we learned with GWB, not of necessity correlated.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 04:12:47 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 06, 2011, 04:07:25 PMAnd how. I think Andrew Sullivan said his favourite thing about Ron Paul is his walk and I think I'm the same. If you ever watch one of the debates its always great because all of the other candidates have big-swinging-dick-Alpha-male walks - it's all very 1950s - and then you get Ron Paul who just has this diffident shuffle onto the stage. It's wonderful and in many ways I always think it a more assured and confident statement than the rest.
"Is likeable" and "would make a good president" are, as we learned with GWB, not of necessity correlated.
But I can barely stand anyone I actually agree with. I almost always find conservatives more likeable - in the US at least, over here there's noone with enough personality to like.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
Oh, well, let's trade places then, since Britain is sooooo boring. :P
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 04:22:40 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 06, 2011, 04:22:40 PM
Paul wants his ideas to speak for him instead of his own personal charisma, and you're right - that is in some ways admirable and definitely likable.
It'd be better if Paul never made any good points; he makes just enough of them in a very general sense (Hey guys, we're overextended in foreign conflict and foreign aid. Hey guys, our spending and revenue don't match each other very well. Hey guys, don't only blame the market for the current mess, the gov't has done its fair share of fucking up the process too.) to lend an unwarranted air of credibility to his specific points, which tend more often than not to be batshit.
It'd be better if Paul never made any good points; he makes just enough of them in a very general sense (Hey guys, we're overextended in foreign conflict and foreign aid. Hey guys, our spending and revenue don't match each other very well. Hey guys, don't only blame the market for the current mess, the gov't has done its fair share of fucking up the process too.) to lend an unwarranted air of credibility to his specific points, which tend more often than not to be batshit.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
Post by: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html
Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.
Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html
Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.
And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:49:14 PM
Post by: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PMQuote from: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html
Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.
And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.
:unsure:
QuoteDefinition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice>
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 04:50:55 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 04:50:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PMAnd the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.I think it's pretty repugnant and I think Michelle comes across very well.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2011, 04:51:09 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 06, 2011, 04:51:09 PM
Maybe grabon meant it was inconsistent. :hmm:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:53:00 PM
Post by: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:53:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 04:50:55 PMQuote from: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PMAnd the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.I think it's pretty repugnant and I think Michelle comes across very well.
Yeah, I clicked on the link thinking that it was going to be something where she looked bad but she actually seemed pretty decent.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 06, 2011, 11:59:36 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 06, 2011, 11:59:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
Oh, well, let's trade places then, since Britain is sooooo boring. :P
Too cold and wet.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 04:12:47 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 06, 2011, 04:07:25 PMAnd how. I think Andrew Sullivan said his favourite thing about Ron Paul is his walk and I think I'm the same. If you ever watch one of the debates its always great because all of the other candidates have big-swinging-dick-Alpha-male walks - it's all very 1950s - and then you get Ron Paul who just has this diffident shuffle onto the stage. It's wonderful and in many ways I always think it a more assured and confident statement than the rest.
"Is likeable" and "would make a good president" are, as we learned with GWB, not of necessity correlated.
But I can barely stand anyone I actually agree with. I almost always find conservatives more likeable - in the US at least, over here there's noone with enough personality to like.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 12:11:22 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 12:11:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
Familiarity breeds contempt.
What is "Languish", Alex?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 06, 2011, 03:41:13 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2011, 03:39:33 PMI liked him too, until he turned from being a protest candidate to being a candidate taken seriously, and a candidate whose ideas zombify countless youths. Then he and his cult started really, really scaring me, mainly due to their limitless ability to completely ignore the reality.
I like Ron Paul :blush:
I think when you dig deeper on Pauls stuff it gets really scary. Conspiracy theory nonsense and Militia bullshit. His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds. He later denied writing them. He's an excellent example of how Conservatives have used "libertarianism" and "smaller government" to court the racist vote in the south. That doesn't come up so much anymore, but it good to remember where a movement has been and what it's roots are.
Fortunately, Paul comes across as simply a kooky old man. Which is what he is. His son has some charisma and might be able to get much larger following.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:21:14 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:21:14 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 12:11:22 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
Familiarity breeds contempt.
What is "Languish", Alex?
Enough with the Jeopardy stuff today.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 12:28:20 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 12:28:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:21:14 AMQuote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 12:11:22 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
Familiarity breeds contempt.
What is "Languish", Alex?
Enough with the Jeopardy stuff today.
Poor baby :(
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:45:40 AM
Post by: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:45:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds. He later denied writing them.
Probably because he didn't write them. Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 12:46:55 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 12:46:55 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:45:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds. He later denied writing them.
Probably because he didn't write them. Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?
Did Lyndon LaRouche ever write for his own newsletter?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
Post by: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
I don't know, did he deny writing for it?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:58:46 AM
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:58:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:49:14 PMQuote from: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PMQuote from: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html
Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.
And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.
:unsure:QuoteDefinition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice>
Teaching your children a proper moral code is no more repugnant than teaching them to count.
I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 01:05:47 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 01:05:47 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
I don't know, did he deny writing for it?
I don't think so. I was just curious.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 01:11:00 AM
Post by: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 01:11:00 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:05:47 AMQuote from: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:47:30 AM
I don't know, did he deny writing for it?
I don't think so. I was just curious.
I was just making a crack. I have no idea if LaRouche wrote for his own rag.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 01:32:35 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 01:32:35 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 07, 2011, 12:45:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds. He later denied writing them.
Probably because he didn't write them. Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?
Why would you have it in your news letter in the first place? Did he bother to read his own newsletter? It's not like it only happened once and then he apologized. It would be really fucking strange if a Congressmen published a newsletter that promoted views he disagreed with out saying who wrote them. In fact, most of them contain no bylines (though some are in the first person so they were either written by Paul or someone wanted to give that impression. It would seem rather difficult to distance yourself from a newsletter that you publish that has your name on it.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 01:41:10 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 01:41:10 AM
Do you have some examples of the kind of stuff you're talking about, Raz?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 01:49:21 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 01:49:21 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:41:10 AM
Do you have some examples of the kind of stuff you're talking about, Raz?
You always doubt me, don't you? I am hurt.
But here you go. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/ The News letters themselves are look like their in some sort of adobe acrobat thingy, but I haven't figured out to zoom in to read them. Apparently there is a way, they appear to be set up for that.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
Those racist newsletters may be a historical curiosity, but that's all they are. We all know that "state rights" is a code word for racism, but that's a battle that has been fought and largely won by the good guys. The current batch of Ron Paul automatons are scary for entirely different and unrelated reasons.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 02:06:01 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 02:06:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 01:49:21 AMQuote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:41:10 AM
Do you have some examples of the kind of stuff you're talking about, Raz?
You always doubt me, don't you? I am hurt.
But here you go. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/ The News letters themselves are look like their in some sort of adobe acrobat thingy, but I haven't figured out to zoom in to read them. Apparently there is a way, they appear to be set up for that.
The Reason article linked right off the bat suggests that Paul didn't write them. It doesn't say "Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008", nor anything remotely close to that. Did the newsone.com article's writer even read the Reason article? (That is a rhetorical question. There's no way you could know the answer to that. Unless you are the newsone.com writer, I guess.)
EDIT: I did some browsing on newsone.com and have come to one definitive conclusion: the odds of Raz being the lead blogger of newsone.com are almost infinitesimally slim.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
It's not wise to read Reason articles. They are unreasonable. "You can't prove that Ron Paul actually wrote the articles", is misdirection. Why are they in his news letter at all?
But I looked at the unReasonable article and it does say
Still that's irrelevant. If his supporters want to hide behind the reasonable doubt that he may not have written all or any of the articles in his own News Letter (though the ones in first person, written about how "he" voted against the MLK day holiday, make Paul deceptive if they were ghost written), that's fine. It's still his News Letter, he was publishing. You can't distance yourself from that unless you are senile.
Still, I didn't know Rothbard was such a dick.
But I looked at the unReasonable article and it does say
QuoteAt the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context."Does sound "remotely" like defending them. But further reading does bolster an argument I've made here several times before (though from a slightly different perspective), that Conservatives used libertarian ideas to appeal to white southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks. From the libertarian perspective they were bring Conservatives over to their way of thinking by appealing to racism.
Still that's irrelevant. If his supporters want to hide behind the reasonable doubt that he may not have written all or any of the articles in his own News Letter (though the ones in first person, written about how "he" voted against the MLK day holiday, make Paul deceptive if they were ghost written), that's fine. It's still his News Letter, he was publishing. You can't distance yourself from that unless you are senile.
Still, I didn't know Rothbard was such a dick.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:34:57 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:34:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
Those racist newsletters may be a historical curiosity, but that's all they are. We all know that "state rights" is a code word for racism, but that's a battle that has been fought and largely won by the good guys. The current batch of Ron Paul automatons are scary for entirely different and unrelated reasons.
If we took away all those federal guarantees, are you confident that none of the bad old days would come back? Where the President's critics openly call him a "Welfare thug", and deny he even has a right to be President of the United States? Do you really trust them to respect everyone's civil rights?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:06:27 AM
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:06:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:58:46 AMQuote from: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:49:14 PMQuote from: Ideologue on December 06, 2011, 04:46:05 PMQuote from: garbon on December 06, 2011, 04:31:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html
Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.
And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning. "Repugnant"? Come on.
:unsure:QuoteDefinition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice>
Teaching your children a proper moral code is no more repugnant than teaching them to count.
I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.
Saw this later after I posted the bid here.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/05/as-a-gay-parent
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 05:15:57 AM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 05:15:57 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:58:46 AMI mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.The kid doesn't want to do it and clearly looks pretty unhappy. I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props - unless they're old enough to want to do it themselves.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:24:22 AM
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:24:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
It's not wise to read Reason articles. They are unreasonable. "You can't prove that Ron Paul actually wrote the articles", is misdirection. Why are they in his news letter at all?
But I looked at the unReasonable article and it does sayQuoteAt the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context."Does sound "remotely" like defending them. But further reading does bolster an argument I've made here several times before (though from a slightly different perspective), that Conservatives used libertarian ideas to appeal to white southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks. From the libertarian perspective they were bring Conservatives over to their way of thinking by appealing to racism.
Still that's irrelevant. If his supporters want to hide behind the reasonable doubt that he may not have written all or any of the articles in his own News Letter (though the ones in first person, written about how "he" voted against the MLK day holiday, make Paul deceptive if they were ghost written), that's fine. It's still his News Letter, he was publishing. You can't distance yourself from that unless you are senile.
Still, I didn't know Rothbard was such a dick.
Well in 2001, his comment was that his staffers told him to say that they were written by him because voters wouldn't understand that he had a ghostwriter who did them and he wasn't even aware of the content of his newsletters.
There was also though a suggestion that the ghostwriter was actually known supporter/friend/confidant of Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 07, 2011, 06:03:43 AM
Post by: dps on December 07, 2011, 06:03:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 05:15:57 AM
I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props
Totally agree. The one thing I always liked about the Clintons was that they kept Chelsea out of the spotlight as much as possible when she was a minor.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 06:20:31 AM
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 06:20:31 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 05:15:57 AMQuote from: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:58:46 AMI mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.The kid doesn't want to do it and clearly looks pretty unhappy. I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props - unless they're old enough to want to do it themselves.
I'm not saying it's classy. All I'm saying is that the use of rather superlative terms like "repugnant" or "shock the conscience"--terms you use to describe America's use of torture in the War on Terror, or a priest fucking a child--is a little extravagant in this case, where, at worst, some mom cajoled her kid into making an innocuous political statement--and it is not clear that the child wasn't into it and didn't just get nervous talking to a madwoman. A case where the only damage that could possibly accrue is talking to a stranger. I mean, not since the Holocaust, right?
Words have connotations. Framing everything as an abomination is unnecessary. And, beyond that, it devalues words to use them irresponsibly.
And no, it's not classy. But that's about it.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:28:08 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:28:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:24:22 AM
Well in 2001, his comment was that his staffers told him to say that they were written by him because voters wouldn't understand that he had a ghostwriter who did them and he wasn't even aware of the content of his newsletters.
There was also though a suggestion that the ghostwriter was actually known supporter/friend/confidant of Ron Paul.
So his excuse is that he was deceptive because he believed his constituents were to stupid to understand him and that he was to lazy to even read his own newsletter? Not exactly a stellar defense. And to be honest, I find it bit harder to believe.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 10:36:33 AM
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 10:36:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 06:20:31 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 05:15:57 AMQuote from: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:58:46 AMI mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.The kid doesn't want to do it and clearly looks pretty unhappy. I don't think it's repugnant because of the nature of what he's saying but because I don't like people using kids as political props - unless they're old enough to want to do it themselves.
I'm not saying it's classy. All I'm saying is that the use of rather superlative terms like "repugnant" or "shock the conscience"--terms you use to describe America's use of torture in the War on Terror, or a priest fucking a child--is a little extravagant in this case, where, at worst, some mom cajoled her kid into making an innocuous political statement--and it is not clear that the child wasn't into it and didn't just get nervous talking to a madwoman. A case where the only damage that could possibly accrue is talking to a stranger. I mean, not since the Holocaust, right?
Words have connotations. Framing everything as an abomination is unnecessary. And, beyond that, it devalues words to use them irresponsibly.
And no, it's not classy. But that's about it.
I'm not framing everything as an abomination. I do think it is awful when people exploit their children. Especially when their efforts make a crazy person look better.
Btw, I've not used repugnant with relation to enhanced interrogation techniques.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 10:41:28 AM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 10:41:28 AM
Your cowardly abuse of English on the subject is heading to repugnant.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 10:43:53 AM
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 10:43:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2011, 10:41:28 AM
Your cowardly abuse of English on the subject is heading to repugnant.
:unsure:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 11:38:39 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 11:38:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
It's not wise to read Reason articles. They are unreasonable.
The article you gave linked to that Reason article as proof of its thesis. :mellow:
In any event, if the Reason article is bad, how is the newsone article good?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 11:40:38 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
Still that's irrelevant.
Yes it is. You can spin virtually any ideology into something nasty regardless of whether or not that was the initial intent.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:01:16 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 12:01:16 PM
I sure can.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 02:28:40 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 11:38:39 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
It's not wise to read Reason articles. They are unreasonable.
The article you gave linked to that Reason article as proof of its thesis. :mellow:
In any event, if the Reason article is bad, how is the newsone article good?
No, it was about Paul's inconsistency. The thesis was that there were a bunch racist rants on his newsletter
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 02:32:00 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 11:40:38 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 03:26:13 AM
Still that's irrelevant.
Yes it is. You can spin virtually any ideology into something nasty regardless of whether or not that was the initial intent.
Trite. What is your actual opinion?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 04:17:09 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 04:17:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 02:32:00 PM
Trite. What is your actual opinion?
On what - whether or not Ron Paul is a racist? My opinion is that based on the evidence you've given, there is insufficient evidence. My other opinion is that I'm not sure we're getting the most unbiased coverage from a blog with other articles such as "Top 5 Black Assassinations". My other other opinion is that there are lots of things you could ding libertarianism for without having to resort to such patently stupid arguments as "libertarianism is racist and that's why it appeals to white Southerners".
But by all means, be both loony *and* snarky. It's all you've got, and you've gotta use what you've got.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 04:23:15 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 04:23:15 PM
So you buy the idea the Ron Paul didn't know what was in his own news letter? You think that's plausible?
And why is my argument "patently stupid"?
And why is my argument "patently stupid"?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 04:30:54 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 04:30:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 04:23:15 PM
So you buy the idea the Ron Paul didn't know what was in his own news letter? You think that's plausible?
What part of "insufficient evidence" is unclear to you? I don't buy anything based on the two sources I've seen so far.
QuoteAnd why is my argument "patently stupid"?
If an evil Karl-Rovey-type guy comes up with a huge list of reasons why libertarianism theoretically would hurt black people and then tries to sell libertarianism to racists based on that list, do you really honestly believe that means libertarianism is racist? Or does it just mean that the guy is a slimey spin-master?
I mean - libertarianism sucks, but not because of anything having to do with race. :wacko:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:00:22 PM
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:00:22 PM
I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 05:15:05 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:00:22 PM
I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.
That seems reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:16:25 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:16:25 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 04:30:54 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 04:23:15 PM
So you buy the idea the Ron Paul didn't know what was in his own news letter? You think that's plausible?
What part of "insufficient evidence" is unclear to you? I don't buy anything based on the two sources I've seen so far.QuoteAnd why is my argument "patently stupid"?
If an evil Karl-Rovey-type guy comes up with a huge list of reasons why libertarianism theoretically would hurt black people and then tries to sell libertarianism to racists based on that list, do you really honestly believe that means libertarianism is racist? Or does it just mean that the guy is a slimey spin-master?
I mean - libertarianism sucks, but not because of anything having to do with race. :wacko:
You don't buy that there were racist screeds in a news letter published by Ron Paul? Actually, I didn't argue that libertarianism is racist (though some members undoubtedly are), just that the ideas were used to lure in racist Southerners by portraying it as hurting blacks. And yeah, it's was done by slimy spin-masters. Lee Atwater said that's what he was doing when he was doing it.
It does help though, to understand some of the strange inconsistency you find modern Conservatism. Such the idea that hard working people in Red States are supporting lay-abouts on the coast when in fact It's states like California and New York that pay more in federal taxes then they take out and states like Kentucky that pay less in taxes then they get in federal money. Where you have conservatives complain about government spending but jealously guard their own subsidies and pork.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:21:30 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:21:30 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 05:15:05 PMQuote from: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:00:22 PM
I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.
That seems reasonable to me.
Why? You think it's reasonable to not know what you are publishing? It's not like the guy was a whole publishing house with hundreds of books a month. Someone throws out a bone and says he might not have written all of the things in his own news letter and so the reasonable conclusion is that not only did he not write any of them, he didn't even know about them! That is absurd and strains credulity.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 05:26:39 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:21:30 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 05:15:05 PMQuote from: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:00:22 PM
I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.
That seems reasonable to me.
Why? You think it's reasonable to not know what you are publishing? It's not like the guy was a whole publishing house with hundreds of books a month. Someone throws out a bone and says he might not have written all of the things in his own news letter and so the reasonable conclusion is that not only did he not write any of them, he didn't even know about them! That is absurd and strains credulity.
:mellow: It seems reasonable to me to *NOT* want a POTUS who is unaware of hateful things being spread in his name.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 07, 2011, 05:27:29 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 07, 2011, 05:27:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2011, 05:00:22 PM
I don't think he is racist, but I'm also not sure I'd want a POTUS who doesn't know when hateful things are being done/spread under his name.
That's hardly the top of the list when it comes to reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. :contract:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
Why is reasonable to think he was unaware?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 05:40:14 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
Why is reasonable to think he was unaware?
It's one of the possibilities, which range from "he was unaware" to "he is a hateful racist". I'm not sure we have enough good sources in this thread to know which of the possibilities is most likely to be true.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:57:28 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:57:28 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 05:40:14 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
Why is reasonable to think he was unaware?
It's one of the possibilities, which range from "he was unaware" to "he is a hateful racist". I'm not sure we have enough good sources in this thread to know which of the possibilities is most likely to be true.
Well, I suppose it's also a possibility that he's an amnesiac and blanks out every time he reads his own material, or he's a vampire, or a secret communist, or he exists in 38 dimensions at once. However, like the "he was unaware" possibility it doesn't seem very likely.
Actually this reminds of Hortlund claiming that Speer new nothing of Holocaust and no matter how much evidence you present to him, it was never enough. Even when I posted a photo of Speer in one of the camps, it wasn't enough. There was always the possibility he didn't know, and Hortlund hid behind this slim possibility no matter what.
So how would you go about "proving" he knew about what was in his own news letter?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 07, 2011, 06:01:57 PM
Post by: dps on December 07, 2011, 06:01:57 PM
I find it plausible that lots of people in Congress don't really know exactly what's in their newsletters unless/until they get questions/complaints about the content. I find it extremely implausible that everyone in Congress actually writes their own newsletters.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 06:10:59 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 06:10:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 05:57:28 PM
Well, I suppose it's also a possibility that he's an amnesiac and blanks out every time he reads his own material, or he's a vampire, or a secret communist, or he exists in 38 dimensions at once. However, like the "he was unaware" possibility it doesn't seem very likely.
Are all of those equally likely, Raz?
QuoteActually this reminds of Hortlund claiming that Speer new nothing of Holocaust
Wow. That is a truly Marti-level analogy. Congratulations.
What adds a special level of thickheadedness to your already bizarre analogy is that I've made no claim that Paul was unaware. I've also made no claim that he is racist. I've made no claim about Paul at all, except to say that since the newsletters exist and have his name attached to them, the possibilities range from "he was unware" to "he was a hateful racist".
The only other argument I have made in this thread is that it is reasonable to not want a POTUS who does not know hateful things are being attached to his name.
Any other arguments you are claiming I've made are of your own invention, Raz.
Whatever sources are necessary for proof they have GOT to be better than the ones you've provided.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 06:40:32 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 06:40:32 PM
You have room to talk! You already claimed I made an argument that I did not. So save your insults and indignation.
They are all in the spectrum of possibility I suppose. But of course you missed the point. Those aren't likely possibilities, and neither is Paul not knowing what is in his own goddamn newsletter for years at a time.
Then what exactly is you position. You claimed it's possible that he's unaware. You seem to be hiding behind slim possibilities, which is why I brought up Hortlund. Hortlund hid behind slim possibilities. Saying "I don't know" is something of a cop out. You can never know for absolutely certain. So take a guess. Or how about this, what evidence would be required to sway you either way? I asked you before, but you avoided giving a real answer.
They are all in the spectrum of possibility I suppose. But of course you missed the point. Those aren't likely possibilities, and neither is Paul not knowing what is in his own goddamn newsletter for years at a time.
Then what exactly is you position. You claimed it's possible that he's unaware. You seem to be hiding behind slim possibilities, which is why I brought up Hortlund. Hortlund hid behind slim possibilities. Saying "I don't know" is something of a cop out. You can never know for absolutely certain. So take a guess. Or how about this, what evidence would be required to sway you either way? I asked you before, but you avoided giving a real answer.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
Quote from: dps on December 07, 2011, 06:01:57 PM
I find it plausible that lots of people in Congress don't really know exactly what's in their newsletters unless/until they get questions/complaints about the content. I find it extremely implausible that everyone in Congress actually writes their own newsletters.
Shame we aren't talking about every congressmen, just one. Paul not a stupid man, he's got an eye for details. As Pedantic as he comes off, I find it silly to think that he didn't know what was coming out of own office for years on end.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:02:09 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 06:40:32 PM
You have room to talk! You already claimed I made an argument that I did not. So save your insults and indignation.
Fair enough. I will back off the insults if you do the same. I am sure it is possible that I misread "He's an excellent example of how Conservatives have used "libertarianism" and "smaller government" to court the racist vote in the south."
QuoteThen what exactly is you position.
My position is that an accusation of racism in a modern-day politician is a serious one, so in order to make it you'd want to eliminate the possibility that he was unaware insofar as you could do that, and that your sources are insufficient to do that in my opinion. Don't try and read between the lines; it's exactly the position I say it is. Don't put words in my mouth.
QuoteYou claimed it's possible that he's unaware. You seem to be hiding behind slim possibilities, which is why I brought up Hortlund.
That's ridiculous. What the fuck am I hiding from? Your dazzling display of argumentative technique? I'm not voting for Paul, am not a Paul supporter, and don't support his son either.
QuoteHortlund hid behind slim possibilities. Saying "I don't know" is something of a cop out. You can never know for absolutely certain. So take a guess. Or how about this, what evidence would be required to sway you either way? I asked you before, but you avoided giving a real answer.
My guess is irrelevant! Jesus, I hope you never serve on a jury. Based on next-to-no information on the subject in this thread, and possibly some misinformation (the kooky newsone.com article and the Reason article are the first I've ever heard on this topic) there is not enough data to make a good judgment either way. In those cases I like to assume the person is innocent until proven guilty. If a worthy news source published information about these newsletters and Paul's connection to them I'd be more than willing to say "yep, he's a racist". Can you come up with any more credible sources than newsone.com and Reason magazine (which, I remind you, say conflicting things on the matter) that link Paul to the content of these newsletters?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
:lol:
This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past. I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.
This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past. I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ed Anger on December 07, 2011, 07:05:21 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on December 07, 2011, 07:05:21 PM
I have no position on this argument.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
:lol:
This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past. I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.
What you call ambiguity I call being sensible. I equally hate jumping to conclusions and half-baked opinions based on poor information and poor logic.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2011, 07:07:26 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2011, 07:07:26 PM
I think Raz should interpret Heterodiz's last post as a concession.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:07:33 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 07, 2011, 07:05:21 PM
I have no position on this argument.
:D :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:08:47 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 07:02:09 PM
Can you come up with any more credible sources than newsone.com and Reason magazine (which, I remind you, say conflicting things on the matter) that link Paul to the content of these newsletters?
Yes, I did. They had samples of the newsletters with his name on them form his office. That's pretty good connection if you ask me. The link I posted was the first one I found that had some of that actual newsletters on it (which is why I chose it). The articles weren't conflicting, they were just spun in different ways.
Oh and they don't let me serve on juries for some reason.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:10:22 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:10:22 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 07:07:12 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
:lol:
This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past. I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.
What you call ambiguity I call being sensible. I equally hate jumping to conclusions and half-baked opinions based on poor information and poor logic.
Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:12:26 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
He's actually the best by far of the Republican crew. I love "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Naturally, this will mean he cannot possibly get the nomination.
And as if on cue, he has backed away:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9253711-huntsman-tweaks-climate-change-tone-says-scientists-need-to-clarify-facts
So disappointing.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:19:03 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:10:22 PM
Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.
:lol:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 07:07:12 PMThere is a reasonable caution, and then there is just sticking your fingers in your ears. What do you want, a smartphone recording of Ron Paul penning his newsletter?Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
:lol:
This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past. I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.
What you call ambiguity I call being sensible. I equally hate jumping to conclusions and half-baked opinions based on poor information and poor logic.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 07:24:29 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 07, 2011, 07:24:29 PM
Gross. But I guess I've seen weirder porn.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:35:42 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 07:35:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
There is a reasonable caution, and then there is just sticking your fingers in your ears. What do you want, a smartphone recording of Ron Paul penning his newsletter?
:rolleyes:
It's possible he wrote them himself.
It's possible he didn't write them but knew about the contents and allowed them to be published, implying apathy at best and agreement at worst.
It's possible he didn't write them and didn't know they were being published until later. Do we know anything about the circulation of the newsletters?
It's possible he exists in 38 dimensions at once.
For any of these possibilities to bear some fruit, we are going to need better sources than newsone.com and Reason.
That's all.
I haven't been bothered to look for other sources because I'm not the one who accused Paul of racism. :shrug:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 07, 2011, 09:23:56 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 07, 2011, 09:23:56 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 07:12:26 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 05, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
He's actually the best by far of the Republican crew. I love "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Naturally, this will mean he cannot possibly get the nomination.
And as if on cue, he has backed away:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9253711-huntsman-tweaks-climate-change-tone-says-scientists-need-to-clarify-facts
So disappointing.
I would not read an MSNBC article on what he said and conclude he "back away".
He certainly temporized the message for his audience, but he did not say anything that could fairly be described as backing away.
He just said the glass was half empty for an audience that like half empty glasses instead of saying it was half full. If that is the worst of his pandering I ahve to deal with (and it sadly almost certainly is not), I will consider myself pretty fortunate.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:13:35 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:13:35 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 07:35:42 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 07, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
There is a reasonable caution, and then there is just sticking your fingers in your ears. What do you want, a smartphone recording of Ron Paul penning his newsletter?
:rolleyes:
It's possible he wrote them himself.
It's possible he didn't write them but knew about the contents and allowed them to be published, implying apathy at best and agreement at worst.
It's possible he didn't write them and didn't know they were being published until later. Do we know anything about the circulation of the newsletters?
It's possible he exists in 38 dimensions at once.
For any of these possibilities to bear some fruit, we are going to need better sources than newsone.com and Reason.
That's all.
I haven't been bothered to look for other sources because I'm not the one who accused Paul of racism. :shrug:
You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea. I provided the blog site primarily because it had copies of the original documents. Those documents seem sufficient to me. To me "The Ron Paul Report" published by Ron Paul is a pretty good connection to Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 07, 2011, 10:16:13 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 07, 2011, 10:16:13 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 07:19:03 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 07:10:22 PM
Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.
:lol:
I have no idea why you get pleasure out of these "debates." Raz isn't reading what you are actually saying, so why bother?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:21:15 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:21:15 PM
I dunno why you comment, Grumbler. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your wisdom of the aged.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 11:36:13 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 07, 2011, 11:36:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:13:35 PM
You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea.
The newsone.com blogger links to the Reason story as "proof" of his assertion of guilt. What lends doubt to the idea is that the Reason article doesn't even say what the newsone.com blogger thinks it says. :mellow:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Zoupa on December 08, 2011, 12:25:32 AM
Post by: Zoupa on December 08, 2011, 12:25:32 AM
There's not much point in arguing with Raz, dude.
I like the guy, but let's face it. He's crazy.
I like the guy, but let's face it. He's crazy.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 11:36:13 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 10:13:35 PM
You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea.
The newsone.com blogger links to the Reason story as "proof" of his assertion of guilt. What lends doubt to the idea is that the Reason article doesn't even say what the newsone.com blogger thinks it says. :mellow:
Okay, what about the primary documents?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 08, 2011, 03:20:00 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 08, 2011, 03:20:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Okay, what about the primary documents?
Use of first person doesn't prove he wrote it himself.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 08:58:58 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 08:58:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 08, 2011, 03:20:00 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Okay, what about the primary documents?
Use of first person doesn't prove he wrote it himself.
No, put the "Ron Paul Report" published by Ron Paul is a pretty good connection. Fahdiz asked for a connection.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 08, 2011, 09:58:08 AM
Post by: dps on December 08, 2011, 09:58:08 AM
Pretty sure that anyone with a printing press could whip up something titled "The Ron Paul Report" with a byline of "By Ron Paul" on it. Heck, with desktop publishing you wouldn't even need a printing press.
I am not suggesting that this is what happened. I've gotten newletters from my Representatives plenty of times, and I've always assumed that their staff put them together for them. I've never figured that the Congressman actually wrote them themself.
Note though, that if your staff writes something on your behalf, and it goes out with your name on it, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call you to task for what it says.
I am not suggesting that this is what happened. I've gotten newletters from my Representatives plenty of times, and I've always assumed that their staff put them together for them. I've never figured that the Congressman actually wrote them themself.
Note though, that if your staff writes something on your behalf, and it goes out with your name on it, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call you to task for what it says.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 08, 2011, 10:23:55 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 08, 2011, 10:23:55 AM
I do expect most written communication from Congerssmen to be written by his staffers. I also expect all of the communication written by his staffers to be signed off on by him. To allegedly be in la-la land regarding the contents of your newsletter for years is just not credible, unless Ron Paul treated his job as a joke and let all kinds of weirdos run the place.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 11:09:11 AM
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 11:09:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Okay, what about the primary documents?
The primary documents show that the person who wrote the content of those documents was a racist. The nasty, old-school kind, too.
Two questions I have - not for Raz, necessarily, but for the group: do we know the circulation of this newsletter? and are these particular ones different in tone from the content of the newsletter in previous years?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 08, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
I saw a figure of around 100,000. That's a lot in the 1980's and early 1990's.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Is the impostor running for POTUS? :wub:
Is the impostor running for POTUS? :wub:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 08, 2011, 12:47:05 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 08, 2011, 12:47:05 PM
I really think this is the year the Republicans are going to embrace teh gheys. But not Perry, they're going to nominate the activist or the flight attendant.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PM
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 12:58:37 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 12:58:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
It's neat to see you make the same mistakes as Raz.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:59:05 PM
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:59:05 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:58:37 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
It's neat to see you make the same mistakes as Raz.
lol
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 01:01:02 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 01:01:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:59:05 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:58:37 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
It's neat to see you make the same mistakes as Raz.
lol
It does make me wonder a little about your reasoning process, though. I mean - I know his excuse. What's yours?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 01:03:09 PM
Post by: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 01:01:02 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:59:05 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:58:37 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
It's neat to see you make the same mistakes as Raz.
lol
It does make me wonder a little about your reasoning process, though. I mean - I know his excuse. What's yours?
Excuse for what? Drive-by dumping in a thread?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 08, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 01:03:09 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 01:01:02 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:59:05 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:58:37 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:51:51 PMQuote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: The Brain on December 08, 2011, 12:01:22 PM
When Ron Paul writes something good (?) it's really him but when he writes racist shit it's some evil impostor?
Who said that? (Besides you, I mean.)
If the glove fits...
It's neat to see you make the same mistakes as Raz.
lol
It does make me wonder a little about your reasoning process, though. I mean - I know his excuse. What's yours?
Excuse for what? Drive-by dumping in a thread?
:)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 04:54:34 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 04:54:34 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 08, 2011, 12:25:32 AM
There's not much point in arguing with Raz, dude.
I like the guy, but let's face it. He's crazy.
You have a limited point, I am crazy. You will never really appreciate concreteness until you've had a conversation with someone was never actually there.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 05:07:54 AM
Post by: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 05:07:54 AM
I wish I had hallucinations. They sound like they'd liven up the joint.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 09, 2011, 05:44:18 AM
Post by: Viking on December 09, 2011, 05:44:18 AM
Republican Primaries = Cripple Fight
Edit: what brought this on? Rick Perry's Homophobic anti First Amendment Campaign Ad
Edit: what brought this on? Rick Perry's Homophobic anti First Amendment Campaign Ad
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 01:36:52 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 01:36:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 05:07:54 AM
I wish I had hallucinations. They sound like they'd liven up the joint.
They aren't as fun as you'd think.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2011, 10:23:55 AM
I do expect most written communication from Congerssmen to be written by his staffers. I also expect all of the communication written by his staffers to be signed off on by him. To allegedly be in la-la land regarding the contents of your newsletter for years is just not credible, unless Ron Paul treated his job as a joke and let all kinds of weirdos run the place.
Agree with this.
It is legit for Paul to say he delegated this to nutjobs and that didn't keep track of what they were doing for years and years.
That may get him off the hook for racism but that kind of supervisory incompetence is pretty damaging for someone who wants to be President of the United States.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 02:45:49 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 02:45:49 PM
I heard that Obama is waging a war on religion. When did this happen?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 03:47:19 PM
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 03:47:19 PM
So apparently Romney is big on cold fusion.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 06:20:22 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 09, 2011, 06:20:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 03:47:19 PM
So apparently Romney is big on cold fusion.
We are going to find out Tim has been working as his science adviser.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2011, 06:24:35 PM
Post by: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2011, 06:24:35 PM
Yay! President Romney will colonize Jupiter.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 09, 2011, 06:49:22 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 09, 2011, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 09, 2011, 06:24:35 PM
Yay! President Romney will colonize Jupiter.
THEN ON TO KOLOB!!!!!
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 07:26:36 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 09, 2011, 07:26:36 PM
Romneycare?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2Fscaledphpserver693filenamegeneralgc.jpg&hash=ee2bcd072f7fefdcfec08ff8d893dcd9e1cabdbc)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2Fscaledphpserver693filenamegeneralgc.jpg&hash=ee2bcd072f7fefdcfec08ff8d893dcd9e1cabdbc)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
And Perry is going hard Christian now it seems. Does it give him a fighting chance?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Fate on December 09, 2011, 08:16:37 PM
Post by: Fate on December 09, 2011, 08:16:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
And Perry is going hard Christian now it seems. Does it give him a fighting chance?
His new ad has more dislikes on YouTube than Rebecca Black's horrid Friday song and it's only been out for 2 days. I don't think so. It's so transparently desperate that even the true Evangelicals will see through it.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:19:55 PM
Post by: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2011, 02:07:17 PMDoes it? That sort of thing tells me that he's a maverick who doesn't play by the Beltway rules.
That may get him off the hook for racism but that kind of supervisory incompetence is pretty damaging for someone who wants to be President of the United States.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:22:30 PM
Post by: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:22:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 09, 2011, 08:16:37 PMTrue Christians don't use YouTube. His ad is the most liked thing in the history of ConservaTube.Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 07:57:12 PMHis new ad has more dislikes on YouTube than Rebecca Black's horrid Friday song and it's only been out for 2 days. I don't think so. It's so transparently desperate that even the true Evangelicals will see through it.
And Perry is going hard Christian now it seems. Does it give him a fighting chance?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 08:26:06 PM
Post by: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 08:26:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:22:30 PM
True Christians don't use YouTube. His ad is the most liked thing in the history of ConservaTube.
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:19:55 PMDoes it? That sort of thing tells me that he's a maverick who doesn't play by the Beltway rules.
Your grasp of politics is approaching the same level of quality as Tim's grasp of history.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:29:45 PM
Post by: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 08:26:06 PMOuch.Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:22:30 PM
True Christians don't use YouTube. His ad is the most liked thing in the history of ConservaTube.Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2011, 08:19:55 PMDoes it? That sort of thing tells me that he's a maverick who doesn't play by the Beltway rules.Your grasp of politics is approaching the same level of quality as Tim's grasp of history.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 10, 2011, 05:59:16 AM
Post by: dps on December 10, 2011, 05:59:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 08:26:06 PM
Your grasp of politics is approaching the same level of quality as Tim's grasp of history.
Well, that's going below the belt, even by Languish standards.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 10, 2011, 07:15:14 AM
Post by: Viking on December 10, 2011, 07:15:14 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 09, 2011, 08:16:37 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 09, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
And Perry is going hard Christian now it seems. Does it give him a fighting chance?
His new ad has more dislikes on YouTube than Rebecca Black's horrid Friday song and it's only been out for 2 days. I don't think so. It's so transparently desperate that even the true Evangelicals will see through it.
He disabled the like/dislike function on his official video, so people re-hosted the video so that they could dislike it. The problem with his video is not only that it is bigoted and homophobic, it is not factual. Well, the one fact he gets right is that DADT has been ended so men who suck cock can shoot mooselimbs. Kids can pray in school, what the constitution bans is government employees leading prayers in their official capacity.
The sheer stupidity is amazing.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 10, 2011, 08:05:52 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 10, 2011, 08:05:52 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2011, 07:15:14 AM
He disabled the like/dislike function on his official video, so people re-hosted the video so that they could dislike it.
Anyone who hated his video that much wasn't going to vote for him anyway.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 12:26:54 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 12:26:54 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 08, 2011, 11:09:11 AM
The primary documents show that the person who wrote the content of those documents was a racist. The nasty, old-school kind, too.
Two questions I have - not for Raz, necessarily, but for the group: do we know the circulation of this newsletter? and are these particular ones different in tone from the content of the newsletter in previous years?
These were not Ron Paul's congressional newsletter. They were a series of newsletters published by various organizations with which Ron Paul was associated.
Here's the original article from The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
In it, Kirchick notes that "[t]he Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984." He also notes that "[Christopher] Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."" Caldwell is a Paul supporter, though, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. Kirchick concludes that "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics." Clearly not a fan, but his conclusions seem to be in line with those of others who have seen the actual newsletter.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 11, 2011, 02:15:32 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 11, 2011, 02:15:32 PM
I think it's time to close this poll and have a run-off between Romney and McMillan.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 02:40:13 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 02:40:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PMHe can still win it, if he can manage to overcome the media blackout, and have the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas.
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
I think the issue of just who Ron Paul is is more than a bit interesting. Some people find it hard to debate the topic rationally, but I think the topic can be debated rationally if everyone simply ignores Raz's "contributions."
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
I think the issue of just who Ron Paul is is more than a bit interesting. Some people find it hard to debate the topic rationally, but I think the topic can be debated rationally if everyone simply ignores Raz's "contributions."
Nah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.
And by "Paul" I mean this carcicature of Paul that includes everything as nutty and crazy about him as possible, no matter what the reality might actually entail.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 04:24:36 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 04:24:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
I think the issue of just who Ron Paul is is more than a bit interesting. Some people find it hard to debate the topic rationally, but I think the topic can be debated rationally if everyone simply ignores Raz's "contributions."
Please stop trolling.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 04:59:46 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PMI couldn't disagree more. I think everyone recognizes that Paul is his own nut. I don't think anyone attributes Paul's view to a Republican party, except in rare cases where Republican party adopts some of his views. You can have separate contempt for Republicans in their current iteration, and hardcore libertarians who take reasonable fundamental assumptions and develop them to the idiotic conclusions.
Nah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.
And by "Paul" I mean this carcicature of Paul that includes everything as nutty and crazy about him as possible, no matter what the reality might actually entail.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Fate on December 11, 2011, 05:00:49 PM
Post by: Fate on December 11, 2011, 05:00:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 04:24:36 PMQuote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
I think the issue of just who Ron Paul is is more than a bit interesting. Some people find it hard to debate the topic rationally, but I think the topic can be debated rationally if everyone simply ignores Raz's "contributions."
Please stop trolling.
It's grumbler...
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 11, 2011, 05:26:07 PM
Post by: garbon on December 11, 2011, 05:26:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
I'm not sure I admire consistency. Especially not when the consistently held ideas are bad.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 05:37:02 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 05:37:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
What good ideas is Ron Paul bring to the table?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 05:38:17 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 05:38:17 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 11, 2011, 05:00:49 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 04:24:36 PMQuote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:17:11 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PM
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
I think the issue of just who Ron Paul is is more than a bit interesting. Some people find it hard to debate the topic rationally, but I think the topic can be debated rationally if everyone simply ignores Raz's "contributions."
Please stop trolling.
It's grumbler...
Yes, I know, but I do grow tired of his drive by shitting.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 06:49:37 PM
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 06:49:37 PM
What good ideas does Ron Paul have? Is it the gold standard?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 06:56:09 PM
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 06:56:09 PM
Ron Paul has some good ideas, changes in doing things. I don't agree with a lot of them but some are worth putting out there. Such as reforming the tax code, other economic ideas. Also, he's not in favor of the US getting so involved around the world, though he's more of an isolationist or something which goes too far to me. The US gains by being involved, gets a say in things. But there are parts of truth in that the US gets too involved, and he would do otherwise.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 11, 2011, 07:16:17 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 11, 2011, 07:16:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PMNah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.He is a legitimate voice the Republican party. He'll never be a leader of it but he's got his own hard-cre of support.
In addition I think his campaign in 2008 has since shaped the Republican party in two ways, one negative and one, I think, quite positive. The negative is that I think he infected Republican discourse on the economy with anti-Fed, Gold Standard silliness - I think that's now reflected in the support he got for his audit the Fed campaign (previously a lonely endeavour he shared with Bernie Sanders) but also in comments about the Fed in the debates and what Perry said. The postive I think is that his brand of isolationism has reinvigorated a more conservative foreign policy. Huntsman's indicative of this. They may not want to pull out of everywhere as Paul does but basically support scaling back the wars and not starting any new ones.
You may not like Democrats saying Paul's a legitimate voice of the GOP (though an eccentric one: anti-war, anti-torture, isolationist eve on Israel, fine with the gays, loving the gold standard) but I think he is. Just as much as Jesse Jackson once was in the Democrats.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:18:10 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:18:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 02:40:13 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PMHe can still win it, if he can manage to overcome the media blackout, and have the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas.
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
No he can't, because once the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas, they'll realize how incredibly batshit insane they actually are.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jaron on December 11, 2011, 07:20:03 PM
Post by: Jaron on December 11, 2011, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:18:10 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 02:40:13 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PMHe can still win it, if he can manage to overcome the media blackout, and have the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas.
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
No he can't, because once the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas, they'll realize how incredibly batshit insane they actually are.
Don't let Princesca hear that. She has a serious moist spot for Ron and Rand.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 07:24:01 PM
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:18:10 PMYou never know. People who vote are pretty stupid.Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 02:40:13 PMNo he can't, because once the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas, they'll realize how incredibly batshit insane they actually are.Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PMHe can still win it, if he can manage to overcome the media blackout, and have the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas.
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
Name one good idea Kucinich has ever had.
Ron Paul is very sincere about the deficit and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim. His gold standard nonsense has to go though.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:33:24 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:33:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PM
and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim.
No, I really don't think you would.
And his Libertarian fascism to health care is a dead end. You have the right to die even if you don't want to, and we have a right to make you exercise that right, is a bit much.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:40:15 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:40:15 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 06:56:09 PM
Ron Paul has some good ideas, changes in doing things. I don't agree with a lot of them but some are worth putting out there. Such as reforming the tax code, other economic ideas. Also, he's not in favor of the US getting so involved around the world, though he's more of an isolationist or something which goes too far to me. The US gains by being involved, gets a say in things. But there are parts of truth in that the US gets too involved, and he would do otherwise.
Be a bit more specific.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PMQuote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
Name one good idea Kucinich has ever had.
Ron Paul is very sincere about the deficit and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim. His gold standard nonsense has to go though.
Yeah, you would. You'd follow anyone who said "deficit reduction". Why are you so obsessed with that?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 07:55:38 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 07:55:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PM
Nah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.
Nah, the reason it has legs is because Paul is, in many ways, the most important catalyst for the formation of the Tea Party. Thus, I am interested in discovering more about who he was and what he said and thought before he started to really make news in the 2008 election cycle. These newsletter seem to shed some light on the topic.
QuoteAnd by "Paul" I mean this carcicature of Paul that includes everything as nutty and crazy about him as possible, no matter what the reality might actually entail.I am as disinterested in your strawman as I am in Raz's.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:58:47 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:58:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
Yeah, you would. You'd follow anyone who said "deficit reduction". Why are you so obsessed with that?
We do?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:59:31 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:59:31 PM
That's okay, Grumbler. Nobody is interested in what you have to say either.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:58:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
Yeah, you would. You'd follow anyone who said "deficit reduction". Why are you so obsessed with that?
We do?
What, is there two of you now?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 11, 2011, 08:04:53 PM
Post by: garbon on December 11, 2011, 08:04:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2011, 07:16:17 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PMNah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.He is a legitimate voice the Republican party. He'll never be a leader of it but he's got his own hard-cre of support.
In addition I think his campaign in 2008 has since shaped the Republican party in two ways, one negative and one, I think, quite positive. The negative is that I think he infected Republican discourse on the economy with anti-Fed, Gold Standard silliness - I think that's now reflected in the support he got for his audit the Fed campaign (previously a lonely endeavour he shared with Bernie Sanders) but also in comments about the Fed in the debates and what Perry said. The postive I think is that his brand of isolationism has reinvigorated a more conservative foreign policy. Huntsman's indicative of this. They may not want to pull out of everywhere as Paul does but basically support scaling back the wars and not starting any new ones.
You may not like Democrats saying Paul's a legitimate voice of the GOP (though an eccentric one: anti-war, anti-torture, isolationist eve on Israel, fine with the gays, loving the gold standard) but I think he is. Just as much as Jesse Jackson once was in the Democrats.
So again - he's not really legit then?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 08:05:22 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 08:05:22 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PMMaybe Paul Wellstone, but certainly not Kucinich. Kucinich is an opportunistic featherweight who toadies to Hugo Chavez and went on Syrian TV to express his support for Bashir Assad.
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 08:09:31 PM
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 08:09:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PMI can't recall Kucinich's ideas now, but I went from just dismissing him outright to liking some of his ideas, and how he sticks to them, doesn't waffle. Now, he's a bit of a fruit in other ways, as Grumbler points out also, but he's one of these guys who has a few new/different ideas (the non-nutty ideas) that other candidates don't seem to say, probably because they're afraid of rocking the political boat.Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
Name one good idea Kucinich has ever had.
Ron Paul is very sincere about the deficit and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim. His gold standard nonsense has to go though.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 08:15:11 PM
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 08:15:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:33:24 PMHow could your system be any worse? Does Ron Paul want to strip poor people down to fill the organ banks or something?
And his Libertarian fascism to health care is a dead end. You have the right to die even if you don't want to, and we have a right to make you exercise that right, is a bit much.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 08:17:37 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 08:17:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 08:09:31 PM
I can't recall Kucinich's ideas now
Creating a Department of Peace and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, that Mexican dude, and Obama.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 11, 2011, 08:20:29 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 11, 2011, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2011, 08:04:53 PMSo again - he's not really legit then?Entirely legit. He's not the legitimate voice of the Republicans but they are large and contain multitudes.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 08:21:52 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 11, 2011, 08:21:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 08:17:37 PMQuote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 08:09:31 PM
I can't recall Kucinich's ideas now
Creating a Department of Peace and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, that Mexican dude, and Obama.
Also voting against the Iraq War. Apparently he did a good job in Cleveland, not for the Mob though.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 08:30:48 PM
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 08:30:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 08:17:37 PMReparations for slavery.Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 08:09:31 PMCreating a Department of Peace and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, that Mexican dude, and Obama.
I can't recall Kucinich's ideas now
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 08:53:25 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 08:53:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:18:10 PMRon Paul supporters don't think so. Given how they're familiar with Paul and what he stands for, I'm willing to trust their judgment.Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 02:40:13 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 02:13:00 PMHe can still win it, if he can manage to overcome the media blackout, and have the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas.
Can we just agree that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee and move along?
No he can't, because once the majority of voters find out about him and his ideas, they'll realize how incredibly batshit insane they actually are.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PMQuote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
I look at Ron Paul similar to Dennis Kucinich. They're not going to be Presidential contenders, but they do have some good ideas, along with the off the wall ideas. But they both stick to their ideas, support their views, and with little flip flopping around. So I can respect that I know where they stand on things, and that they are consistent on their views and stances on issues.
Name one good idea Kucinich has ever had.
Free Market Drug Act.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:33:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PM
and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim.
No, I really don't think you would.
And his Libertarian fascism to health care is a dead end. You have the right to die even if you don't want to, and we have a right to make you exercise that right, is a bit much.
Tell me more.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 09:01:40 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 09:01:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 07:55:38 PMThe trouble is that Ron Paul is to today's Tea Party what Abraham Lincoln is to today's Republican party.
Nah, the reason it has legs is because Paul is, in many ways, the most important catalyst for the formation of the Tea Party. Thus, I am interested in discovering more about who he was and what he said and thought before he started to really make news in the 2008 election cycle. These newsletter seem to shed some light on the topic.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:08:35 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:08:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 08:58:23 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 07:33:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 07:24:31 PM
and I would be okay with his neo-isolationsim.
No, I really don't think you would.
And his Libertarian fascism to health care is a dead end. You have the right to die even if you don't want to, and we have a right to make you exercise that right, is a bit much.
Tell me more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
Did not like it when Wolf asked him point blank if the hypothetical man should be left to die and he started warbling on about some stupid tangent about churches and licensing requirements. The answer is "yes." Well, actually the answer is "hospitals should be nationalized and everyone should receive practically free treatment, unless the cost of treatment outweighs prospects for success"; I mean the answer consistent with Paulism. What a cowardly distraction.
Also, Ron Paul twitches in an uncomfortable manner. Physician, fine, but I hope he wasn't a surgeon.
Also, Ron Paul twitches in an uncomfortable manner. Physician, fine, but I hope he wasn't a surgeon.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 09:24:57 PM
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2011, 08:17:37 PMYeah, he's a fruitcake half the time.Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 08:09:31 PM
I can't recall Kucinich's ideas now
Creating a Department of Peace and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, that Mexican dude, and Obama.
My point was that at least some of these guys and gals do put innovative ideas out there, things that actually address issues. Something that more mainstream pols don't do, since they go along to get along, take baby steps and fear angering anyone. Gingrich is one with innovative ideas and not so much the nutty stuff. He expresses views and ideas that are sweeping changes, and isn't afraid to go against the grain of usual politics. In time that will ruffle people more but he has some good ideas.
Take Romney, Perry, and most others. They have ideas but nothing paticularly sweeping. Cain had his 9-9-9 plan. That wouldn't likely have passed as is but he was pushing a flat tax, Federal sales tax while eliminating many other taxes to make up for it. Innovative ideas that at least get us talking outside the box, food for thought to look at some issues differently.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:26:05 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
Did not like it when Wolf asked him point blank if the hypothetical man should be left to die and he started warbling on about some stupid tangent about churches and licensing requirements. The answer is "yes." Well, actually the answer is "hospitals should be nationalized and everyone should receive practically free treatment, unless the cost of treatment outweighs prospects for success," but if the latter is not possible I guess the former is fine.
Also, Ron Paul twitches in an uncomfortable manner. Physician, fine, but I hope he wasn't a surgeon.
The fact that he declares that one of the major problems is "there is no competition" in the healthcare industry tells me all I need to know about what he knows about the healthcare industry.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 09:24:57 PM
My point was that at least some of these guys and gals do put innovative ideas out there, things that actually address issues. Something that more mainstream pols don't do, since they go along to get along, take baby steps and fear angering anyone. Gingrich is one with innovative ideas and not so much the nutty stuff. He expresses views and ideas that are sweeping changes, and isn't afraid to go against the grain of usual politics. In time that will ruffle people more but he has some good ideas.
Take Romney, Perry, and most others. They have ideas but nothing paticularly sweeping. Cain had his 9-9-9 plan. That wouldn't likely have passed as is but he was pushing a flat tax, Federal sales tax while eliminating many other taxes to make up for it. Innovative ideas that at least get us talking outside the box, food for thought to look at some issues differently.
Thing is, our government and the political process it runs on, by its very nature is not amenable to "innovative" ideas. It's the nation's largest bureaucracy, the largest corporation. You just don't introduce novel and new concepts to an established machine; it just doesn't work that way. You make the machine, and the way it works, achieve the results you need.
That's why "Washington Insiders", for all their faults, usually get things done to a much greater degree than the "Washington Outsiders".
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Grallon on December 11, 2011, 09:35:16 PM
Post by: Grallon on December 11, 2011, 09:35:16 PM
Whichever of these mongrels manage to win the presidency - you guys are fucked :P
G.
G.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jaron on December 11, 2011, 09:37:37 PM
Post by: Jaron on December 11, 2011, 09:37:37 PM
mongrels?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:41:12 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:41:12 PM
They're mongrels, J. Mongrels.
Except maybe Huntsman. But he's still a Republitard.
Except maybe Huntsman. But he's still a Republitard.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Post by: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 09:01:40 PM
The trouble is that Ron Paul is to today's Tea Party what Abraham Lincoln is to today's Republican party.
There is an element of truth in that, for sure. A lot of people have climbed on the Tea Party bandwagon who could never live with Paul's indifference to personal choices, but the fiscal conservatism (maybe better described as reactionary conservatism) is still pretty much where Ron Paul started out.
Not nearly so much is left of Lincoln in the Republican Party as a whole.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 09:41:42 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Grallon on December 11, 2011, 09:35:16 PM
Whichever of these mongrels manage to win the presidency - you guys are fucked :P
G.
None of them will win the presidency.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2011, 07:16:17 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 04:21:14 PMNah, the only reason it has legs is that the Dems love the idea of Paul being a legitimate voice of the Republican Party. Most of the discussion is driven by that, I suspect.He is a legitimate voice the Republican party. He'll never be a leader of it but he's got his own hard-cre of support.
In addition I think his campaign in 2008 has since shaped the Republican party in two ways, one negative and one, I think, quite positive. The negative is that I think he infected Republican discourse on the economy with anti-Fed, Gold Standard silliness - I think that's now reflected in the support he got for his audit the Fed campaign (previously a lonely endeavour he shared with Bernie Sanders) but also in comments about the Fed in the debates and what Perry said. The postive I think is that his brand of isolationism has reinvigorated a more conservative foreign policy. Huntsman's indicative of this. They may not want to pull out of everywhere as Paul does but basically support scaling back the wars and not starting any new ones.
You may not like Democrats saying Paul's a legitimate voice of the GOP (though an eccentric one: anti-war, anti-torture, isolationist eve on Israel, fine with the gays, loving the gold standard) but I think he is. Just as much as Jesse Jackson once was in the Democrats.
I don't mind them saying he is THAT voice at all.
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
Of course, "racism" as a political concept has not existed in US politics in a generation, but why let that stop you? It is so juicy and exciting! Oh, Paul is going after the KKK vote!
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:54:38 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
:lol: Like it isn't.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 09:54:52 PM
Post by: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:32:00 PMHehe, yeah, things have been going so well for so long now. ;)Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 09:24:57 PM
My point was that at least some of these guys and gals do put innovative ideas out there, things that actually address issues. Something that more mainstream pols don't do, since they go along to get along, take baby steps and fear angering anyone. Gingrich is one with innovative ideas and not so much the nutty stuff. He expresses views and ideas that are sweeping changes, and isn't afraid to go against the grain of usual politics. In time that will ruffle people more but he has some good ideas.
Take Romney, Perry, and most others. They have ideas but nothing paticularly sweeping. Cain had his 9-9-9 plan. That wouldn't likely have passed as is but he was pushing a flat tax, Federal sales tax while eliminating many other taxes to make up for it. Innovative ideas that at least get us talking outside the box, food for thought to look at some issues differently.
Thing is, our government and the political process it runs on, by its very nature is not amenable to "innovative" ideas. It's the nation's largest bureaucracy, the largest corporation. You just don't introduce novel and new concepts to an established machine; it just doesn't work that way. You make the machine, and the way it works, achieve the results you need.
That's why "Washington Insiders", for all their faults, usually get things done to a much greater degree than the "Washington Outsiders".
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: ulmont on December 11, 2011, 09:54:53 PM
Post by: ulmont on December 11, 2011, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
Of course, "racism" as a political concept has not existed in US politics in a generation, but why let that stop you?
Have you seen the studies estimating Obama lost 5% of the vote in 2008 for being black?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: sbr on December 11, 2011, 09:57:11 PM
Post by: sbr on December 11, 2011, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2011, 09:54:53 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
Of course, "racism" as a political concept has not existed in US politics in a generation, but why let that stop you?
Have you seen the studies estimating Obama lost 5% of the vote in 2008 for being black?
Are there any studies on how much he gained from being black?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 10:00:15 PM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 10:00:15 PM
Has anybody ever realized that he's not really black to begin with?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 10:06:04 PM
Post by: Neil on December 11, 2011, 10:06:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:26:05 PMIt's the wrong kind of competition. Ron Paul would repeal the Endangered Species Act in order to allow Americans the benefits of eating rare penises.Quote from: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 09:22:35 PMThe fact that he declares that one of the major problems is "there is no competition" in the healthcare industry tells me all I need to know about what he knows about the healthcare industry.
Did not like it when Wolf asked him point blank if the hypothetical man should be left to die and he started warbling on about some stupid tangent about churches and licensing requirements. The answer is "yes." Well, actually the answer is "hospitals should be nationalized and everyone should receive practically free treatment, unless the cost of treatment outweighs prospects for success," but if the latter is not possible I guess the former is fine.
Also, Ron Paul twitches in an uncomfortable manner. Physician, fine, but I hope he wasn't a surgeon.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 10:13:29 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 10:13:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PMI like it how you always know what other people think. I do think that Republicans picked up the racists when Democrats dumped them in 1960ies, but this has nothing to do with Paul. Paul has always been his own fruitcake, even if he were nominally a Republican for much of his career.
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it one more time: sometimes people mean what they say, and don't have any hidden motives. There is no need to play a game of Kremlinology with my words, I'm not really that complicated.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 10:14:34 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 11, 2011, 10:14:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 09:54:38 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
:lol: Like it isn't.
Now, now. They hate a lot of white people too.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Maximus on December 11, 2011, 10:16:15 PM
Post by: Maximus on December 11, 2011, 10:16:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 10:00:15 PMHe's no true Scotsman either.
Has anybody ever realized that he's not really black to begin with?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 10:13:29 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PMI like it how you always know what other people think. I do think that Republicans picked up the racists when Democrats dumped them in 1960ies, but this has nothing to do with Paul. Paul has always been his own fruitcake, even if he were nominally a Republican for much of his career.
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it one more time: sometimes people mean what they say, and don't have any hidden motives. There is no need to play a game of Kremlinology with my words, I'm not really that complicated.
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:29:53 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PMIt's not playing a race card if what you're saying is true. Racism as a political issue certainly became more nuanced and concealed since the days of George Wallace, but if you don't see it still being in play, then you're either willfully blind, or as usual playing too hard to appear even-handed.
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:39:54 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2011, 09:54:53 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
Of course, "racism" as a political concept has not existed in US politics in a generation, but why let that stop you?
Have you seen the studies estimating Obama lost 5% of the vote in 2008 for being black?
No, cannot say that I have.
But even if it is true, that doesn't address my point, and if anything disproves DGullers rather bizarre claim that most racists are Republicans. After all, if they are all Republicans, they aren't voting for Obama no matter what color he is, because he is a Dem. So if millions of people are refusing to vote for him because he is black, they must be people who would have voted for him otherwise.
And what do we call those people? Democrats. Or independents, at least.
But my point you are responding to is simply that "racism" is not a political concept, and has not been for decades. Nobody runs on the racism platform, there is no defined body of voters who are racists and vote as a bloc of any kind at all.
There are still lots of racists out there of course. But the idea that they are concentrated in one party or another is laughable. DG supposed "rigor" when it comes to statistical analysis is right up there with Marty's expertise in US law when he tosses out completely unsupported claims like that.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:29:53 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PMIt's not playing a race card if what you're saying is true.
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
OK, lets see the stats that show that most racists are Republicans. Lets see the study, the statistical analysis, the reasoning for why we should accept your claim that this is true.
Here is what I know, although it is rather weak evidence, being based on personal experience only. I know personally very few people who I would consider to hold racist views. In fact, prior to moving to upstate New York, I didn't really know any.
But since moving here, I run into people every now and again who think nothing of saying something like "That nigger Obama..." and then some stupid shit about whatever. Or just bitching about black people, or immigrants in general. And you know what? They are all middle class, union card carrying members of the Democratic Party, like most everyone in my wife's family demographic. Now, not everyone in my wife's rather large family is like that of course, but everyone in my wife's family IS a democrat.
The idea that one party has some kind of monopoly or even lions share of the "racist vote" is ridiculous. You pulled that straight out of your ass based on idiotic stereotypes, probably about Southerners in general is my guess.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:48:20 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:48:20 PM
If I had to justify every opinion that I hold with extensive and exhaustive statistical studies, then I would believe in very little. Sometimes you have limited information, and have to rely on common sense and personal observations. Concluding that Republican party appeals much more to hardcore racists than Democratic party is frankly nowhere near the top of the list of conclusions I worry being wrong about. I've been wrong before, so I can be wrong about this. But, we both know that I'm not, and that you're just doing your usual Berkut schtick.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:50:25 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:50:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:48:20 PM
If I had to justify every opinion that I hold with extensive and exhaustive statistical studies, then I would believe in very little.
Extensive and exhaustive? How about non-existensive and cursory? Got any of those kinds of studies?
QuoteSometimes you have limited information, and have to rely on common sense and personal observations.
You know what people who are not driven by faith and ignorance do when they have "limited information"? They only draw limited conclusions. Those don't include treasures like "ZOMG the racists all flocked to the Republicans!" because they want it to be true.
Quote
Concluding that Republican party appeals much more to hardcore racists than Democratic party is frankly nowhere near the top of the list of conclusions I worry being wrong about. I've been wrong before, so I can be wrong about this. But, we both know that I'm not, and that you're just doing your usual Berkut schtick.
In other words, no, you don't have any reason to believe that beyond that you want it to be true. As expected.
We can see just how "rigorous" your demand for actual evidence is when it comes to your politics.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 11, 2011, 11:50:40 PM
Post by: garbon on December 11, 2011, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2011, 10:00:15 PM
Has anybody ever realized that he's not really black to begin with?
I've already voiced that I'm blacker in the cultural sense. :smarty:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:51:48 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:51:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:45:21 PMIn my personal experience, everyone who is a racist is an urban dweller, and urban dwellers are notorious Democrat voters. :hmm: Maybe you have a point. Or maybe you're just committing a probabilistic fallacy of your own while chiding me on lack of statistical rigor.Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:29:53 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PMIt's not playing a race card if what you're saying is true.
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
OK, lets see the stats that show that most racists are Republicans. Lets see the study, the statistical analysis, the reasoning for why we should accept your claim that this is true.
Here is what I know, although it is rather weak evidence, being based on personal experience only. I know personally very few people who I would consider to hold racist views. In fact, prior to moving to upstate New York, I didn't really know any.
But since moving here, I run into people every now and again who think nothing of saying something like "That nigger Obama..." and then some stupid shit about whatever. Or just bitching about black people, or immigrants in general. And you know what? They are all middle class, union card carrying members of the Democratic Party, like most everyone in my wife's family demographic. Now, not everyone in my wife's rather large family is like that of course, but everyone in my wife's family IS a democrat.
The idea that one party has some kind of monopoly or even lions share of the "racist vote" is ridiculous. You pulled that straight out of your ass based on idiotic stereotypes, probably about Southerners in general is my guess.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:55:28 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:55:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:51:48 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:45:21 PMIn my personal experience, everyone who is a racist is an urban dweller, and urban dwellers are notorious Democrat voters. :hmm: Maybe you have a point. Or maybe you're just committing a probabilistic fallacy of your own while chiding me on lack of statistical rigor.Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:29:53 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PMIt's not playing a race card if what you're saying is true.
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
OK, lets see the stats that show that most racists are Republicans. Lets see the study, the statistical analysis, the reasoning for why we should accept your claim that this is true.
Here is what I know, although it is rather weak evidence, being based on personal experience only. I know personally very few people who I would consider to hold racist views. In fact, prior to moving to upstate New York, I didn't really know any.
But since moving here, I run into people every now and again who think nothing of saying something like "That nigger Obama..." and then some stupid shit about whatever. Or just bitching about black people, or immigrants in general. And you know what? They are all middle class, union card carrying members of the Democratic Party, like most everyone in my wife's family demographic. Now, not everyone in my wife's rather large family is like that of course, but everyone in my wife's family IS a democrat.
The idea that one party has some kind of monopoly or even lions share of the "racist vote" is ridiculous. You pulled that straight out of your ass based on idiotic stereotypes, probably about Southerners in general is my guess.
The difference between me and you is I am not trying to draw general conclusions from my particular experiences. My personal experience simply makes me think "Wow, I had no idea there were so many casually racist people around, that is really rather disturbing, especially since these are actually pretty decent people...".
I don't try to shoe-horn those observations into my political or personal agenda though. I make no probabilistic prediction based on my experiences, hence cannot possibly be committing the fallacy. YOU however, are doing exactly that.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
Post by: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
I'm not just using my personal experience. But, anyway, we can go round and round with this, like always. I don't have the time for that right now.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:00:37 AM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:00:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
I'm not just using my personal experience. But, anyway, we can go round and round with this, like always. I don't have the time for that right now.
I am sure you don't. But that is fine - the bigger point has been made. Just another datum of how DG is so ready to suspend any kind of critical analysis when it comes to slandering Republicans.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jacob on December 12, 2011, 12:06:09 AM
Post by: Jacob on December 12, 2011, 12:06:09 AM
So Berkut, you don't think racism plays a factor in US elections at all?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 12:08:47 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 12:08:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:00:37 AMThe point has been made, but as usual it's a point full of shit. Trying to insert the last word in when I declare my lack of availability to continue this inane debate won't change that.Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
I'm not just using my personal experience. But, anyway, we can go round and round with this, like always. I don't have the time for that right now.
I am sure you don't. But that is fine - the bigger point has been made. Just another datum of how DG is so ready to suspend any kind of critical analysis when it comes to slandering Republicans.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 12, 2011, 12:11:25 AM
Post by: Ideologue on December 12, 2011, 12:11:25 AM
I'll take a Democrat who says "nigger" over a Republican who never thinks a racist thought but fundamentally misunderstands the socioeconomic structure of this country and votes for policies that are bound to impact black people in a disproportionate way, like higher sales taxes or cutting welfare programs.
I'll also happily take a Democrat who says "nigger" over a Republican who doesn't think the president is even an American, as at least the Democrat is reality-based.
They're all human scum, but some scum occupies higher layers in the mat of algal growth that is America.
I'll also happily take a Democrat who says "nigger" over a Republican who doesn't think the president is even an American, as at least the Democrat is reality-based.
They're all human scum, but some scum occupies higher layers in the mat of algal growth that is America.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:18:24 AM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2011, 12:06:09 AM
So Berkut, you don't think racism plays a factor in US elections at all?
No, I don't think racism is a political force - meaning that I don't think there is a racist voting block, or that either party does much of anything to court racists (secretly or otherwise) or that traditionally racial issues are meaningful anymore. The good guys won, and racism to the extent that it still exists is not coherent enough to be a political variable that can be manipulated by anyone. There is no racist bloc that goes with one party that they see as catering to them in the manner DG is claiming.
There are a bunch of racists out there almost certainly. Plenty of what I call "casually racist" who would be offended to be referred to as racist, but at the same time when they are comfortable around family have no qualms making nigger jokes, or bitching about spics, or whatever. They aren't running around in sheets at night though, and they certainly don't make political decisions based on their views on race in the manner someone who is pro-life does, or pro-union, or such.
I most certainly think race is a factor in US politics. I would bet if anything it helped Obama get elected though, rather than hurt him. I think the exact same politician who was white with the same message and same experience, never even gets a nomination much less wins. Hell, probably would not even consider running for that matter.
That isn't such a bad thing though, it was about time we elected someone who is not a white, male Christian.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:21:00 AM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:21:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 12:08:47 AMQuote from: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:00:37 AMThe point has been made, but as usual it's a point full of shit.Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
I'm not just using my personal experience. But, anyway, we can go round and round with this, like always. I don't have the time for that right now.
I am sure you don't. But that is fine - the bigger point has been made. Just another datum of how DG is so ready to suspend any kind of critical analysis when it comes to slandering Republicans.
No, sadly it is not. What is full of shit is you making claims like "The Republicans picked up the racist vote". It is so full of shit on so many levels it isn't even funny. The fact that you know you cannot back it up at all is kind of funny though, and your pretense that suddenly you are too bust to post and defend such a moronic claim is downright hilarious.
QuoteTrying to insert the last word in when I declare my lack of availability to continue this inane debate won't change that.
Yeah, I don't believe you. You don't have time because you know that all the time in the world won't make your claim sound anymore rational. You know as well as everyone else that you are completely full of shit.
What is really amusing is that I bet you don't even see the rather obvious parallel between the way you look at the hated Republicans and are perfectly willing to just make up crap to believe about them no matter how unsupported or outlandish, and how traditional racists looked at whatever "other" they hated. It is all the same root cause...
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 12:27:52 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 12:27:52 AM
Well, I am studying for an online actuarial exam right now on another screen, and refreshing Languish way more than I should be, and thus got sucked into this. My exam is on Tuesday morning, so I should really just let you froth. This is my final final post on this.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:33:23 AM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 12:33:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 12:27:52 AM
Well, I am studying for an online actuarial exam right now on another screen, and refreshing Languish way more than I should be, and thus got sucked into this. My exam is on Tuesday morning, so I should really just let you froth. This is my final final post on this.
Froth? I am not the one slinging about accusations of racism DG. You are the one doing all the frothing here.
But good luck on your exam in any case.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 01:03:24 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 01:03:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:17:42 PM
You are right about that - you certainly are not very complicated.
You just keep playing that race card in your overly simple manner. You and Raz.
If you had been following the discussion you'd see that the race card was played. Not by us, but by Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and possibly Ron Paul. I'm not portraying Ron Paul as the face of conservatism. Perhaps the libertarian wing of the GOP but not the GOP as a whole. In fact, I think the libertarian wing is quite weak.
The discussion has been how much was connected to his own series of news letters. The news letters had racist language in them and had racist themes. Nobody has denied that. The question has been about how much Ron Paul had to do with them. Dguller and I thought he had a lot to do with them, while some have suggested that these nasty news letters were essentially written behind his back.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 01:10:47 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 01:10:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 11:45:21 PM
OK, lets see the stats that show that most racists are Republicans. Lets see the study, the statistical analysis, the reasoning for why we should accept your claim that this is true.
Here is what I know, although it is rather weak evidence, being based on personal experience only. I know personally very few people who I would consider to hold racist views. In fact, prior to moving to upstate New York, I didn't really know any.
But since moving here, I run into people every now and again who think nothing of saying something like "That nigger Obama..." and then some stupid shit about whatever. Or just bitching about black people, or immigrants in general. And you know what? They are all middle class, union card carrying members of the Democratic Party, like most everyone in my wife's family demographic. Now, not everyone in my wife's rather large family is like that of course, but everyone in my wife's family IS a democrat.
The idea that one party has some kind of monopoly or even lions share of the "racist vote" is ridiculous. You pulled that straight out of your ass based on idiotic stereotypes, probably about Southerners in general is my guess.
I will provide you with something that may help. This is more about "Tea Party" rather then "Republican", but there is great deal of overlap, so it's a starting point.
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html
QuoteMany believed that the election of Barack Obama brought to a close the long, painful, and ugly history of race and racism in the United States. But as the incident with Henry Louis Gates last summer, and the more recent outbursts of the Tea Party activists suggest, racial divisions remain. Which is closer to the truth? A recent survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, finds that America is definitely not beyond race. For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren't much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 12, 2011, 05:32:09 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 12, 2011, 05:32:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:51:48 PM
In my personal experience, everyone who is a racist is an urban dweller, and urban dwellers are notorious Democrat voters. :hmm: Maybe you have a point. Or maybe you're just committing a probabilistic fallacy of your own while chiding me on lack of statistical rigor.
So you don't have either studies or anecdotal evidence to back your claim, yet you feel confident in it anyway. :hmm:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 08:01:21 AM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 12, 2011, 05:32:09 AMQuote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:51:48 PM
In my personal experience, everyone who is a racist is an urban dweller, and urban dwellers are notorious Democrat voters. :hmm: Maybe you have a point. Or maybe you're just committing a probabilistic fallacy of your own while chiding me on lack of statistical rigor.
So you don't have either studies or anecdotal evidence to back your claim, yet you feel confident in it anyway. :hmm:
You cannot blame the guy for his faith!
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 12, 2011, 08:35:24 AM
Post by: grumbler on December 12, 2011, 08:35:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 10:13:29 PM
I do think that Republicans picked up the racists when Democrats dumped them in 1960ies...
The ones that the Democrats dumped, yes, for the most part (I don't see a lot of independent racists; that's not how they work). The Democrats only dumped a portion of their racists, though.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 12, 2011, 09:00:40 AM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 12, 2011, 09:00:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2011, 09:52:30 PMI don't mind them saying he is THAT voice at all.Okay. I broadly agree.
My point is that the reason THIS issue has legs is that DG and Raz want him to be the voice of the racists in the Republican party, because they very much want it to be the case that the Republican part is all about racism.
Of course, "racism" as a political concept has not existed in US politics in a generation, but why let that stop you? It is so juicy and exciting! Oh, Paul is going after the KKK vote!
I don't think the Republicans are racist, personally. And I think you're probably right about blue collar casual racism. It's certainly true in this country the majority of people who switch to vote BNP are Labour voters and I don't necessarily think they're actually all bigots I think a lot of them are basically sold a lot of bullshit by the BNP.
What I don't get though is why many Republicans never seem to want to work out why minority groups don't vote for them. I don't think it's just because they're too busy enjoying being 'victims' and looking for affirmative action'. I think there's a tone of debate about these issues that would make many potential Republican voters back away - the idea from one Republican candidate of having a electrified fence on the US-Mexico border, for example.
And in terms of racism in politics now I think it'll be dog-whistle, deniable stuff like Newt Gingrich's phrase that Obama's a 'food-stamp President'. I don't know if Gingrich is in any way racist but I think that sort of line is clearly dog-whistle politics and, if he gets called on it, Gingrich can react like Captain Reynaud and win sympathy from some as a victim of the 'race card' being played on him.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Post by: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
I'm not just using my personal experience. But, anyway, we can go round and round with this, like always. I don't have the time for that right now.
My personal experience is that almost everyone has some racists thoughts, beliefs, or sentiments; whether or not they admit it even to themselves. And there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so I'd have to say that there are more racists Democrats than racist Republicans. OTOH, as best as I can tell, the Republican party is narrowing the registration gap, so I guess that it would be accurate to say that racists have been moving from the Democratic party to the Republican party--except that (again, as best as I can tell) the Republicans haven't been gaining in registration, just narrowing the gap because the Democrats have been losing registered voters to the independent ranks moreso than the Republicans. So the overall conclusion is that more and more racists are abandoning the 2 dominant parties to join the independent ranks.
OK, a lot of that was tongue-in-cheek. But overall, I agree with Berkut--I don't think that blatantly racists can really find much comfort in either party.
QuoteOf those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.
I don't think that blacks, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. But I also don't think that whites, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. That makes me either a cynic or misanthrope, not a racist.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PMQuoteOf those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.
I don't think that blacks, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. But I also don't think that whites, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. That makes me either a cynic or misanthrope, not a racist.
The interesting part of that article is that if you actually look at the data (ignoring for the moment the rather bizarre intent of the study), you will find that it turns out that nearly everyone is "racist" by the definition of the study authors.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:46:23 PM
Post by: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:46:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PMQuote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PMQuoteOf those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.
I don't think that blacks, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. But I also don't think that whites, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. That makes me either a cynic or misanthrope, not a racist.
The interesting part of that article is that if you actually look at the data (ignoring for the moment the rather bizarre intent of the study), you will find that it turns out that nearly everyone is "racist" by the definition of the study authors.
Most studies find what they set out to find. Set out to find racists, you'll find racism everywhere. Set out to find tolerance, well, you won't find it everywhere, but you will find it to be fairly common in the West.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 06:40:28 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 06:40:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PMQuote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PMQuoteOf those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.
I don't think that blacks, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. But I also don't think that whites, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. That makes me either a cynic or misanthrope, not a racist.
The interesting part of that article is that if you actually look at the data (ignoring for the moment the rather bizarre intent of the study), you will find that it turns out that nearly everyone is "racist" by the definition of the study authors.
Bizarre intent? This is exactly what you asked for. Please elaborate on your statement.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 10:07:12 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 06:40:28 PMQuote from: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PMQuote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:16:12 PMQuoteOf those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.
I don't think that blacks, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. But I also don't think that whites, as a group, are hardworking, intelligent, or trustworthy. That makes me either a cynic or misanthrope, not a racist.
The interesting part of that article is that if you actually look at the data (ignoring for the moment the rather bizarre intent of the study), you will find that it turns out that nearly everyone is "racist" by the definition of the study authors.
Bizarre intent? This is exactly what you asked for. Please elaborate on your statement.
No, it isn't. A study that purports to show that Tea Party people have more intolerant view points than the general population (but only by some marginal amount - turns out that apaprently 70% of the general white population is 'racist' in the studies view that someone who says black people should work harder is racist) has zero bearing on whether Republicans "got all the racists" as DG claims.
I sure as hell am not going to be put in the position of defending the Tea Party people.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 10:10:39 PM
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 10:10:39 PM
It is rather telling that Raz immediately makes exactly the same error that got the discussion going - finding some selected group (a group in this case rather than a particular person) and using them as a stand in for the Republican Party.
A good move politically, and one I am surprised the Dems have not done a better job exploiting, but it isn't particularly intellectually honest.
A good move politically, and one I am surprised the Dems have not done a better job exploiting, but it isn't particularly intellectually honest.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 11:49:48 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 12, 2011, 11:49:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2011, 10:07:12 PM
No, it isn't. A study that purports to show that Tea Party people have more intolerant view points than the general population (but only by some marginal amount - turns out that apaprently 70% of the general white population is 'racist' in the studies view that someone who says black people should work harder is racist) has zero bearing on whether Republicans "got all the racists" as DG claims.
I sure as hell am not going to be put in the position of defending the Tea Party people.
What do you suppose the overlap between Republican and Tea Party is? There is a Tea party Caucus, what is the percentage of Democrats to Republicans in that caucus?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2011, 10:56:17 PM
Post by: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2011, 10:56:17 PM
Harsh! :XD:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_296w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2011%2F11%2F29%2FEditorial-Opinion%2FGraphics%2Ftoles11302011.jpg&hash=f8a5c4f94a84e2aa41c0f935a6da8b64cd578447)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_296w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2011%2F11%2F29%2FEditorial-Opinion%2FGraphics%2Ftoles11302011.jpg&hash=f8a5c4f94a84e2aa41c0f935a6da8b64cd578447)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 09:58:49 AM
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 09:58:49 AM
Just for marty, found this on George Takeis facebook photo album
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F386093_324864320876361_205344452828349_1224450_1649967952_n.jpg&hash=9b67fbe3c004d591b505202b49756e961536b836)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F386093_324864320876361_205344452828349_1224450_1649967952_n.jpg&hash=9b67fbe3c004d591b505202b49756e961536b836)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
Post by: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 09:58:49 AM
Just for marty, found this on George Takeis facebook photo album
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F386093_324864320876361_205344452828349_1224450_1649967952_n.jpg&hash=9b67fbe3c004d591b505202b49756e961536b836)
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:18:20 AM
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
If you are Marty or Takei then it does... all ghey men think all homophobes are secretly ghey.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 10:19:36 AM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 10:19:36 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
:yes:
Sideburns too. And jeans.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
Having dudes come over and have sex with you in the Texas Capital building while your assitants are supposed to not notice does though.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:22:34 AM
Post by: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:22:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
Having dudes come over and have sex with you in the Texas Capital building while your assitants are supposed to not notice does though.
Touche.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:24:01 AM
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:19:38 AMQuote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
Having dudes come over and have sex with you in the Texas Capital building while your assitants are supposed to not notice does though.
eh, did I miss something?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:26:18 AM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:26:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:24:01 AM
eh, did I miss something?
I don't know. Do you work in the Texas State Capital?
I have spoken to several eye witnesses. Also: Lt. Governor David Dewhurst likes to have sex with the female employees on his private jet.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Gups on December 15, 2011, 10:27:58 AM
Post by: Gups on December 15, 2011, 10:27:58 AM
oops, what a giveaway...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ls43x4y65H1qbofuso1_400.jpg&hash=1df33f1926021a9c5263272f92e8b22966e5a0ec)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ls43x4y65H1qbofuso1_400.jpg&hash=1df33f1926021a9c5263272f92e8b22966e5a0ec)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 10:28:43 AM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2011, 10:17:17 AMOnly if you're making anti-gay adverts :)
So a Carhartt jacket automatically signals Brokeback now? :hmm:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:26:18 AMQuote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:24:01 AM
eh, did I miss something?
I don't know. Do you work in the Texas State Capital?
I have spoken to several eye witnesses. Also: Lt. Governor David Dewhurst likes to have sex with the female employees on his private jet.
Elaborate...
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 15, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 15, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:26:18 AM
I don't know. Do you work in the Texas State Capital?
I have spoken to several eye witnesses. Also: Lt. Governor David Dewhurst likes to have sex with the female employees on his private jet.
Is publishing off-the-record info on Languish a breach of ethics or not? :hmm:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 15, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Is publishing off-the-record info on Languish a breach of ethics or not? :hmm:
Only if I reported names or got specific :P
It really doesn't matter if you believe Perry is gay or not. His candidacy speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 10:42:34 AM
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 10:42:34 AM
His campaign has been pretty gay.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 10:38:03 AMQuote from: Peter Wiggin on December 15, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Is publishing off-the-record info on Languish a breach of ethics or not? :hmm:
Only if I reported names or got specific :P
It really doesn't matter if you believe Perry is gay or not. His candidacy speaks for itself.
OH COME ON!
You can't drop a turd on my carpet and then not explain why!
You can't insinuate that a homophobe loves to suck cock and then shut up.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
You can't insinuate that a homophobe loves to suck cock and then shut up.
What do you want from me? Besides it is not like it just me who says this.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 11:03:52 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 11:03:52 AM
I have spoken to one of the assistants in the Texas State Capital. He claims that Valmy has been one of the "regular visitors" to Perry's office. Can't say anything more, sorry.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:06:21 AM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:06:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 11:03:52 AM
I have spoken to one of the assistants in the Texas State Capital. He claims that Valmy has been one of the "regular visitors" to Perry's office. Can't say anything more, sorry.
Ok what more would need to be said? :P
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 11:28:54 AM
Post by: Viking on December 15, 2011, 11:28:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:02:14 AMQuote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
You can't insinuate that a homophobe loves to suck cock and then shut up.
What do you want from me? Besides it is not like it just me who says this.
Explain what you meant; that is what I want from you.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 11:32:37 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 11:32:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:06:21 AMI don't know about need, but more could be said. A lot more, if you know what I mean. But it won't be said. :shutup:Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2011, 11:03:52 AM
I have spoken to one of the assistants in the Texas State Capital. He claims that Valmy has been one of the "regular visitors" to Perry's office. Can't say anything more, sorry.
Ok what more would need to be said? :P
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 15, 2011, 11:34:08 AM
Post by: The Brain on December 15, 2011, 11:34:08 AM
I don't get it.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:14:49 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 11:28:54 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:02:14 AMQuote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
You can't insinuate that a homophobe loves to suck cock and then shut up.
What do you want from me? Besides it is not like it just me who says this.
Explain what you meant; that is what I want from you.
Rick Perry fellates penises till they ejaculate in his mouth. Clear enough?
What, do you need a picture? The Net is vast.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2011, 12:19:45 PM
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2011, 12:19:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 11:02:14 AMQuote from: Viking on December 15, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
You can't insinuate that a homophobe loves to suck cock and then shut up.
What do you want from me? Besides it is not like it just me who says this.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you couldn't just leave an insinuation that that. That's pretty standard OP in such situations for Republican homophobes who turn out to be self-loathing gays.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 12:29:48 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 12:29:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:14:49 PM
Rick Perry fellates penises till they ejaculate in his mouth. Clear enough?
What, do you need a picture? The Net is vast.
The question is about the amount of corroboration, not the act.
If Valmy's friend said he saw Perry buttseksing someone, then we only need to examine the friend's credibility. If he saw something other than a sex act, we need to examine both the logic of the inference and the credibility.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 12:32:35 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 12:32:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 12:29:48 PMHe is very camp...
The question is about the amount of corroboration, not the act.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 12:42:00 PM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 12:29:48 PM
The question is about the amount of corroboration, not the act.
If Valmy's friend said he saw Perry buttseksing someone, then we only need to examine the friend's credibility. If he saw something other than a sex act, we need to examine both the logic of the inference and the credibility.
Big republican and religious lady who was burning with indignation, so not really a friend of mine. Telling us all not to vote for him because of his immoral blah blah.
But really Yi does it matter so much we need to examine it? The problem with Perry is he is corrupt, a terrible governor, and a terrible campaigner. Why do we need to focus on what is, in any case, just an amusing rumor and anecdote?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 12:46:32 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 12:46:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 12:42:00 PM
Big republican and religious lady who was burning with indignation, so not really a friend of mine. Telling us all not to vote for him because of his immoral blah blah.
But really Yi does it matter so much we need to examine it? The problem with Perry is he is corrupt, a terrible governor, and a terrible campaigner. Why do we need to focus on what is, in any case, just an amusing rumor and anecdote?
I agree with Viking. If you bring up that a friend of yours was an eye witness to Perry's manmanlove, then don't give details, that's a cock tease.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Post by: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Back to the topic at hand....
Gingrich has been leading nearly every single state poll outside of New Hampshire. But the latest Iowa poll actually has Romney with a two point lead over Gingrich. And Gingrich's numbers on Intrade have dropped dramatically. As recently as a couple days ago, Romney's chances for winning the nomination were around 40% and Gingrich was around 35%. Now, Gingrich has dropped to 15% and Romney is almost at 60%.
Gingrich has been leading nearly every single state poll outside of New Hampshire. But the latest Iowa poll actually has Romney with a two point lead over Gingrich. And Gingrich's numbers on Intrade have dropped dramatically. As recently as a couple days ago, Romney's chances for winning the nomination were around 40% and Gingrich was around 35%. Now, Gingrich has dropped to 15% and Romney is almost at 60%.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 15, 2011, 01:14:33 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 15, 2011, 01:14:33 PM
Probably has to do with the poll they've been running showing Romney doing better than Gingrich head to head vs. Obama.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Gups on December 15, 2011, 01:26:37 PM
Post by: Gups on December 15, 2011, 01:26:37 PM
Quote from: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Back to the topic at hand....
Gingrich has been leading nearly every single state poll outside of New Hampshire. But the latest Iowa poll actually has Romney with a two point lead over Gingrich. And Gingrich's numbers on Intrade have dropped dramatically. As recently as a couple days ago, Romney's chances for winning the nomination were around 40% and Gingrich was around 35%. Now, Gingrich has dropped to 15% and Romney is almost at 60%.
That sounds like a good bet on Gringrich. Rogue poll? The previous two had Romney trailing Paul (and Perry in one)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 01:30:08 PM
Post by: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 01:30:08 PM
Quote from: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
has been leading nearly every single state poll outside of New Hampshire. But the latest Iowa poll actually has Romney with a two point lead over Gingrich. And Gingrich's numbers on Intrade have dropped dramatically. As recently as a couple days ago, Romney's chances for winning the nomination were around 40% and Gingrich was around 35%. Now, Gingrich has dropped to 15% and Romney is almost at 60%.
Iowa and NH are so vital for momentum I do not think polls outside of those states matter too much before they take place. I mean they matter a little bit but not too much.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Zanza on December 15, 2011, 04:40:13 PM
Post by: Zanza on December 15, 2011, 04:40:13 PM
So I did this election test here: http://www.votingaid.com/start/usa2012.html
Huntsman 66.8%
Romney 57.3%
Gingrich 53.9%
Paul 49.8%
Perry 34.4%
Bachmann 33.6%
Santorum 33.0%
Huntsman 66.8%
Romney 57.3%
Gingrich 53.9%
Paul 49.8%
Perry 34.4%
Bachmann 33.6%
Santorum 33.0%
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 15, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 15, 2011, 04:40:13 PM:mmm:
So I did this election test here: http://www.votingaid.com/start/usa2012.html
Huntsman - 74.9%
Gingrich - 58.1%
Paul - 56.7%
Romney - 53.1%
Perry - 49.3%
Santorum - 43.9%
Bachmann - 43.3%
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2011, 05:18:40 PM
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2011, 05:18:40 PM
Jon Huntsman - 71.4 %
Mitt Romney - 69.7 %
Newt Gingrich - 63.2 %
Rick Perry - 54.0 %
Rick Santorum - 48.2 %
Michele Bachmann - 44.3 %
Ron Paul - 43.4 %
Mitt Romney - 69.7 %
Newt Gingrich - 63.2 %
Rick Perry - 54.0 %
Rick Santorum - 48.2 %
Michele Bachmann - 44.3 %
Ron Paul - 43.4 %
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: mongers on December 15, 2011, 05:22:30 PM
Post by: mongers on December 15, 2011, 05:22:30 PM
Can you guys please hurry up and decide. :rolleyes:
What about an extended game of rock-scissors-paper amongst them ?
What about an extended game of rock-scissors-paper amongst them ?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 05:24:45 PM
Post by: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 05:22:30 PM
Can you guys please hurry up and decide. :rolleyes:
What about an extended game of rock-scissors-paper amongst them ?
A good thing Cain's out of the race. I'm not sure he could master the rules. :P
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2011, 05:25:10 PM
Post by: garbon on December 15, 2011, 05:25:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 05:22:30 PM
Can you guys please hurry up and decide. :rolleyes:
What about an extended game of rock-scissors-paper amongst them ?
Repub primaries start in Jan and end in June. :D
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:27:38 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:27:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 05:24:45 PMQuote from: mongers on December 15, 2011, 05:22:30 PM
Can you guys please hurry up and decide. :rolleyes:
What about an extended game of rock-scissors-paper amongst them ?
A good thing Cain's out of the race. I'm not sure he could master the rules. :P
Perry remembers that there is rock and paper but he can't quite remember the last one. He thinks it might be EPA.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:40:53 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:40:53 PM
It said I like Romney and Gingrich the best and Bachman and Paul the least. I guess that's probably true?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 15, 2011, 05:42:16 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 15, 2011, 05:42:16 PM
Huntsman 70.4%
Gingrich 66.3%
Romney 65.9%
Gingrich 66.3%
Romney 65.9%
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:45:12 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:45:12 PM
Adolf Hitler 77%
Napoleon 61%
Caracalla 45%
Caligula 41%
Napoleon 61%
Caracalla 45%
Caligula 41%
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:46:01 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:46:01 PM
Poor Cal, he's never going to get that Colonelship.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:46:11 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:46:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:45:12 PM
Adolf Hitler 77%
Napoleon 61%
Caracalla 45%
Caligula 41%
:D
Wish I'd thought of that.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:46:11 PMQuote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:45:12 PM
Adolf Hitler 77%
Napoleon 61%
Caracalla 45%
Caligula 41%
:D
Wish I'd thought of that.
I would vote for 3 out of 4 of those historical figures. If you can guess who I wouldn't vote for, you win nothing.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:51:15 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:51:15 PM
I love him and all, but I don't think I could in good conscience vote for Caliga.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
The answer is Caracalla. Thank you for playing!
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 15, 2011, 05:55:58 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 15, 2011, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:46:01 PM
Poor Cal, he's never going to get that Colonelship.
Isn't it a colonelcy?
Red squiggly lines agree with me. :yes:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 06:27:51 PM
Post by: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 06:27:51 PM
Jon Huntsman - 80.1 %
Newt Gingrich - 64.3 %
Mitt Romney - 61.3 %
Ron Paul - 56.5 %
Rick Perry - 55.2 %
Michele Bachmann - 51.6 %
Rick Santorum - 48.0 %
Newt Gingrich - 64.3 %
Mitt Romney - 61.3 %
Ron Paul - 56.5 %
Rick Perry - 55.2 %
Michele Bachmann - 51.6 %
Rick Santorum - 48.0 %
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
Post by: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Gups on December 15, 2011, 01:26:37 PMQuote from: stjaba on December 15, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
Back to the topic at hand....
Gingrich has been leading nearly every single state poll outside of New Hampshire. But the latest Iowa poll actually has Romney with a two point lead over Gingrich. And Gingrich's numbers on Intrade have dropped dramatically. As recently as a couple days ago, Romney's chances for winning the nomination were around 40% and Gingrich was around 35%. Now, Gingrich has dropped to 15% and Romney is almost at 60%.
That sounds like a good bet on Gringrich. Rogue poll? The previous two had Romney trailing Paul (and Perry in one)
Gingrich's numbers appear to be dropping in multiple polls, so it's possible he has peaked and is on his way down. Gingrich has been getting heavily attacked as the front runner. Most of the mainstream conservative voices are very anti-Gingrich and have been really vocal the past two weeks. The National Review(an influential conservative magazine) ran an anti-Gingrich editorial this week. Romney's surrogates having been going negative. Gingrich has been facing a lot of negative ads from multiple sources in Iowa. The narrative appears to be that Gingrich is on his way down and I think that's reflected in the Intrade numbers. Of course, it's definitely possible that Intrade traders have over-compensated and Gingrich is under-valued at this point.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
The answer is Caracalla. Thank you for playing!
He did build some impressive baths.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 09:01:37 PM
Post by: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 09:01:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:27:25 PMQuote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
The answer is Caracalla. Thank you for playing!
He did build some impressive baths.
Killed while taking a leak. DISQUALIFIED.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 15, 2011, 09:02:44 PM
Post by: Habbaku on December 15, 2011, 09:02:44 PM
Paul - 74.5%
Huntsman - 57.1%
:)
Huntsman - 57.1%
:)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 09:10:22 PM
Post by: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 09:10:22 PM
Great, another Raz rant about Paul is headed our way. :)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Habbaku on December 15, 2011, 09:14:40 PM
Post by: Habbaku on December 15, 2011, 09:14:40 PM
That's okay; he'll tire himself out eventually.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 09:17:06 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 09:17:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 15, 2011, 09:10:22 PM
Great, another Raz rant about Paul is headed our way. :)
The one ranting was either Paul or his ghost writer. Not me.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 09:27:28 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 09:27:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 09:01:37 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:27:25 PMQuote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
The answer is Caracalla. Thank you for playing!
He did build some impressive baths.
Killed while taking a leak. DISQUALIFIED.
I didn't know how he was killed. All I knew was he considered one of the bad emperors, he built some baths and was assassinated.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 16, 2011, 06:11:34 AM
Post by: dps on December 16, 2011, 06:11:34 AM
Newt Gingrich 77.4%
Mitt Romnry 71.5%
Jon Huntsman 70.3%
Mitt Romnry 71.5%
Jon Huntsman 70.3%
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
I admit, I have a soft spot for Gingrich. Yeah, he's an arrogant prick, but he's an intelligent arrogant prick. He's more an idea man, a wonk. While I disagree with much of what he says, and he has a tendency toward low blows and cheap tricks I still respect his intellect. His biggest weakness is that he's an asshole. And everyone who knows him thinks that, so it's hard for him to build consensus and the like. I am reminded of the statement about FDR: That he had "a second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament". This made him an excellent president. Gingrich is the opposite.
I'd really like to know what Hans thinks and who he supports. It's a shame he rarely posts here anymore.
I'd really like to know what Hans thinks and who he supports. It's a shame he rarely posts here anymore.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 16, 2011, 08:01:31 AM
Post by: Viking on December 16, 2011, 08:01:31 AM
Huntsman - 72.7
Gingrich - 69.4
Romney - 63.9
Perry - 53.2
Paul - 53.0
Santorum - 52.4
Bachman - 50.9
which is pretty much the order and magnitude I would have guessed before the sliders
Gingrich - 69.4
Romney - 63.9
Perry - 53.2
Paul - 53.0
Santorum - 52.4
Bachman - 50.9
which is pretty much the order and magnitude I would have guessed before the sliders
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: sbr on December 16, 2011, 08:09:44 AM
Post by: sbr on December 16, 2011, 08:09:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 09:27:28 PMQuote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 09:01:37 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 08:27:25 PMQuote from: Ed Anger on December 15, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
The answer is Caracalla. Thank you for playing!
He did build some impressive baths.
Killed while taking a leak. DISQUALIFIED.
I didn't know how he was killed. All I knew was he considered one of the bad emperors, he built some baths and was assassinated.
He is one of the biggest A-holes ever. He had his brother murdered in front of their mother at a meeting mother had set up to get them to agree to get along better.
And was killed while taking a leak.
After building some baths.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: The Brain on December 16, 2011, 08:18:40 AM
Post by: The Brain on December 16, 2011, 08:18:40 AM
The baths were awesome though.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 16, 2011, 08:35:06 AM
Post by: garbon on December 16, 2011, 08:35:06 AM
Gingrich has a first-rate intellect?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Iormlund on December 16, 2011, 08:46:01 AM
Post by: Iormlund on December 16, 2011, 08:46:01 AM
he means relative to other republicans.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:17:27 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:17:27 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 15, 2011, 09:02:44 PM
Paul - 74.5%
Huntsman - 57.1%
:)
lulz, Mitt's my man.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
I admit, I have a soft spot for Gingrich. Yeah, he's an arrogant prick, but he's an intelligent arrogant prick. He's more an idea man, a wonk. While I disagree with much of what he says, and he has a tendency toward low blows and cheap tricks I still respect his intellect. His biggest weakness is that he's an asshole. And everyone who knows him thinks that, so it's hard for him to build consensus and the like. I am reminded of the statement about FDR: That he had "a second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament". This made him an excellent president. Gingrich is the opposite.
So, you're saying he's Al Gore with a mean streak.
QuoteI'd really like to know what Hans thinks and who he supports. It's a shame he rarely posts here anymore.
Too busy updating his blog and giving neo-conservative PPT presentations when neo-conservatism's out of style.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 09:21:25 AM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 09:21:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2011, 08:35:06 AMSo he says.
Gingrich has a first-rate intellect?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: garbon on December 16, 2011, 09:50:56 AM
Post by: garbon on December 16, 2011, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 09:21:25 AMQuote from: garbon on December 16, 2011, 08:35:06 AMSo he says.
Gingrich has a first-rate intellect?
I guess by that token - I'm the Queen of the Night.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 03:26:41 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 03:26:41 PM
Okay, Queeny.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:18:05 PM
Post by: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:18:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:19:12 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
I admit, I have a soft spot for Gingrich. Yeah, he's an arrogant prick, but he's an intelligent arrogant prick. He's more an idea man, a wonk. While I disagree with much of what he says, and he has a tendency toward low blows and cheap tricks I still respect his intellect. His biggest weakness is that he's an asshole. And everyone who knows him thinks that, so it's hard for him to build consensus and the like. I am reminded of the statement about FDR: That he had "a second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament". This made him an excellent president. Gingrich is the opposite.
So, you're saying he's Al Gore with a mean streak.
No, he's more like what Al Gore would be if Gore was actually as smart as he thinks he is.
That said, I don't think Gingrich really has a first-rate intellect--I don't think that any current or recent major American political figure has. Gingrich has a second-rate intellect, but about a fourth-rate temperment. Gore has about a third-rate temperment and a fourth-rate intellect--which still makes him smarter than most political figures.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 16, 2011, 07:21:05 PM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 16, 2011, 07:21:05 PM
Wasn't Bubba a Rhodes Scholar?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:24:37 PM
Post by: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:24:37 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 16, 2011, 07:21:05 PM
Wasn't Bubba a Rhodes Scholar?
Yes. And IMO, he's smarter than Gore.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:14 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:14 PM
Quote from: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:18:05 PMQuote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:19:12 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
I admit, I have a soft spot for Gingrich. Yeah, he's an arrogant prick, but he's an intelligent arrogant prick. He's more an idea man, a wonk. While I disagree with much of what he says, and he has a tendency toward low blows and cheap tricks I still respect his intellect. His biggest weakness is that he's an asshole. And everyone who knows him thinks that, so it's hard for him to build consensus and the like. I am reminded of the statement about FDR: That he had "a second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament". This made him an excellent president. Gingrich is the opposite.
So, you're saying he's Al Gore with a mean streak.
No, he's more like what Al Gore would be if Gore was actually as smart as he thinks he is.
That said, I don't think Gingrich really has a first-rate intellect--I don't think that any current or recent major American political figure has. Gingrich has a second-rate intellect, but about a fourth-rate temperment. Gore has about a third-rate temperment and a fourth-rate intellect--which still makes him smarter than most political figures.
So translated from GOPtard speak to English you are saying Gore had a 1st rate intellect and Newt had a 4th rate intellect.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 07:33:30 PM
Post by: Sheilbh on December 16, 2011, 07:33:30 PM
Quote from: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:18:05 PMI'd say Obama, Clinton and Bush I are all very intelligent.
That said, I don't think Gingrich really has a first-rate intellect--I don't think that any current or recent major American political figure has. Gingrich has a second-rate intellect, but about a fourth-rate temperment. Gore has about a third-rate temperment and a fourth-rate intellect--which still makes him smarter than most political figures.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 16, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Quote from: dps on December 16, 2011, 07:18:05 PMOK, Brainiac 5.Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2011, 09:19:12 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
I admit, I have a soft spot for Gingrich. Yeah, he's an arrogant prick, but he's an intelligent arrogant prick. He's more an idea man, a wonk. While I disagree with much of what he says, and he has a tendency toward low blows and cheap tricks I still respect his intellect. His biggest weakness is that he's an asshole. And everyone who knows him thinks that, so it's hard for him to build consensus and the like. I am reminded of the statement about FDR: That he had "a second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperament". This made him an excellent president. Gingrich is the opposite.
So, you're saying he's Al Gore with a mean streak.
No, he's more like what Al Gore would be if Gore was actually as smart as he thinks he is.
That said, I don't think Gingrich really has a first-rate intellect--I don't think that any current or recent major American political figure has. Gingrich has a second-rate intellect, but about a fourth-rate temperment. Gore has about a third-rate temperment and a fourth-rate intellect--which still makes him smarter than most political figures.
(People who get this joke: me, Neil, maybe Buddha.)
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Neil on December 16, 2011, 08:10:23 PM
Post by: Neil on December 16, 2011, 08:10:23 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 12:26:53 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 12:26:53 AM
I got it. :)
Hey, Has anyone seen Siege for awhile? I haven't seen him since Seedy temp banned him a little while ago.
Hey, Has anyone seen Siege for awhile? I haven't seen him since Seedy temp banned him a little while ago.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: DGuller on December 17, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
Post by: DGuller on December 17, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
Jesus, Seedy really likes to drive away the cream of the crop, doesn't he? First bmolsson, now Siege. :(
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2011, 12:33:22 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2011, 12:33:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 17, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
Jesus, Seedy really likes to drive away the cream of the crop, doesn't he? First bmolsson, now Siege. :(
Oh, please. He was unbanned before he even finished sleeping off his drunk.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2011, 12:34:00 AM
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2011, 12:34:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 17, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
Jesus, Seedy really likes to drive away the cream of the crop, doesn't he? First bmolsson, now Siege. :(
AND FUCK YOU ABOUT THAT BMOLSSON SHOT I SAW THAT
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 17, 2011, 12:37:09 AM
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 17, 2011, 12:37:09 AM
I wonder if Bmo's found #3 yet. :hmm:
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Tonitrus on December 17, 2011, 01:00:55 AM
Post by: Tonitrus on December 17, 2011, 01:00:55 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 17, 2011, 12:37:09 AM
I wonder if Bmo's found #3 yet. :hmm:
#3 stab wound? Isn't one enough?
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 17, 2011, 10:58:19 AM
Post by: grumbler on December 17, 2011, 10:58:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2011, 12:34:00 AM
AND FUCK YOU ABOUT THAT BMOLSSON SHOT I SAW THAT
Don't walk away from your greatest triumph. I'd have given you the grumbler point for that if I hadn't already awarded it.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
It's possible that Bmol posted some of the most incisive and intelligent comments on this board made by anyone here. Unfortunately nobody could make heads or tails of what the hell he was saying. It was like when you used Babelfish to translated something From English to French to German to Russian to Spanish and finally English again.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Jacob on December 17, 2011, 04:44:22 PM
Post by: Jacob on December 17, 2011, 04:44:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
It's possible that Bmol posted some of the most incisive and intelligent comments on this board made by anyone here. Unfortunately nobody could make heads or tails of what the hell he was saying. It was like when you used Babelfish to translated something From English to French to German to Russian to Spanish and finally English again.
Bmo made some good posts. Some of them were garbled if you chose to read them uncharitably, but almost everything he posted made sense.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 04:56:23 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 04:56:23 PM
Not that much more garbled than an average post from Hillary. :P
The problem was that Stitch was miserable at expressing irony.
The problem was that Stitch was miserable at expressing irony.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Post by: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Do I have a fun nickname? I'm sure I do, but I forget.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 17, 2011, 08:34:23 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 17, 2011, 08:34:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 02:04:26 PM
It's possible that Bmol posted some of the most incisive and intelligent comments on this board made by anyone here
He did, actually.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: fhdz on December 17, 2011, 08:34:59 PM
Post by: fhdz on December 17, 2011, 08:34:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Do I have a fun nickname? I'm sure I do, but I forget.
I know mine was "Apostate Boy", but it seems like we're pretty past that now.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 08:41:11 PM
Post by: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 08:41:11 PM
Yi calls me Rasberry sometimes. Occasionally I'll call him Rev, cause Reverend Moon is the only famous Korean I can think of.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 08:55:14 PM
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 08:55:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Do I have a fun nickname? I'm sure I do, but I forget.
Dump Truck and Outhouse. I think you had a third which I forgot.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: KRonn on December 17, 2011, 09:37:24 PM
Post by: KRonn on December 17, 2011, 09:37:24 PM
I am so sick of seeing Donald Trump being trotted out for opinion, or his "threats" to run again, or his foolishness on hosting a debate, or for his political viewpoints especially. I would have hoped we'd seen enough of him pretty quickly when he first jumped in the race. But man, he keeps coming back, or getting interviews on some cable station or another.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: grumbler on December 18, 2011, 01:43:43 AM
Post by: grumbler on December 18, 2011, 01:43:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2011, 04:44:22 PMTrue, but once you got past those two posts, it was all shit mangled into something close enough to shinola that Languish just bought it without looking.
Bmo made some good posts. Some of them were garbled if you chose to read them uncharitably, but almost everything he posted made sense.
I'm glad he's history. He added nothing here.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Viking on December 18, 2011, 01:53:19 AM
Post by: Viking on December 18, 2011, 01:53:19 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 08:55:14 PMQuote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Do I have a fun nickname? I'm sure I do, but I forget.
Dump Truck and Outhouse. I think you had a third which I forgot.
No. Yi nicknames do not sound like WWF (fuck the WWE) artistnames.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Syt on December 18, 2011, 02:08:00 AM
Post by: Syt on December 18, 2011, 02:08:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Do I have a fun nickname? I'm sure I do, but I forget.
If you had they didn't stick.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: Razgovory on December 18, 2011, 02:35:25 AM
Post by: Razgovory on December 18, 2011, 02:35:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 18, 2011, 01:53:19 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 08:55:14 PMQuote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 06:54:56 PM
Do I have a fun nickname? I'm sure I do, but I forget.
Dump Truck and Outhouse. I think you had a third which I forgot.
No. Yi nicknames do not sound like WWF (fuck the WWE) artistnames.
They often only make sense to him.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: stjaba on December 19, 2011, 02:43:46 PM
Post by: stjaba on December 19, 2011, 02:43:46 PM
Ron Paul has the lead in the latest two Iowa polls:
Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10, Bachmann 10, Santorum 10, Huntsman 4
Paul 24, Romney 18, Gingrich 13, Perry 16, Bachmann 10, Santorum 3, Huntsman 4
I wonder if Paul is going to get negative attacks? I wonder if Romney is going to bother attacking Ron Paul- if Paul's numbers drop, the likely beneficiary would probably be Perry or Gingrich. It's probably in Romney's best interest to let Ron Paul win and shot for second. In any event, as long as Romney gets third or better, he probably will pass the expectations test, which is the big reason why Iowa and NH are important.
Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10, Bachmann 10, Santorum 10, Huntsman 4
Paul 24, Romney 18, Gingrich 13, Perry 16, Bachmann 10, Santorum 3, Huntsman 4
I wonder if Paul is going to get negative attacks? I wonder if Romney is going to bother attacking Ron Paul- if Paul's numbers drop, the likely beneficiary would probably be Perry or Gingrich. It's probably in Romney's best interest to let Ron Paul win and shot for second. In any event, as long as Romney gets third or better, he probably will pass the expectations test, which is the big reason why Iowa and NH are important.
Title: Re: Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)
Post by: HVC on December 19, 2011, 02:48:25 PM
Post by: HVC on December 19, 2011, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2011, 04:56:23 PM:D
Not that much more garbled than an average post from Hillary. :P
Ya, i've gotten worse lately. i'm betting on a brain tumor.