:bleeding:
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-leads-iowa-gingrich-support-erodes-poll-142125714.html
QuoteDES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Presidential nominee Newt Gingrich's status as Republican front runner is fading after weeks of attack ads from rivals and intense media exposure of his political history and personality.
A Public Policy Polling survey of likely Republican caucus-goers in the key state of Iowa released on Monday showed the former House speaker dropping to third place there from first in the space of a week.
His lead also has evaporated in national poll.
"Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding and Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row," Public Policy Polling, which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, said in a statement.
Gingrich earned just 14 percent in the latest Iowa poll compared to 22 percent a week ago and 27 percent two weeks ago.
Congressman Ron Paul took over the lead with 23 percent, a five point increase over the past weeks. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Gingrich's main national rival, was second with 20 percent.
The survey of almost 600 people, taken December 16-18, had a 4 percentage point margin of error.
Another poll, by CNN/ORC International, showed that Gingrich and Romney were tied on 28 percent of support nationally from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
An outpouring of television and radio commercials by Gingrich's opponents that paint him as unreliable and a Washington insider has taken a toll.
"It's tough not to feel the effects in millions of dollars in advertising spent against you with no comparable response," said Tim Albrecht, spokesman for Republican Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and a former Romney staffer during his first run for president in 2008.
Gingrich's personal favorability numbers also fell during the past fortnight from plus 31 to plus 12 to a minus 1 now among Iowa voters polled ahead of the January 3 Iowa caucus, the polling firm said.
STILL TIME FOR MORE SEESAW MOVES
Gingrich's front-runner status has prompted attacks from rivals who say he is an unreliable conservative and influence peddler, particularly because of fat fees he earned from Freddie Mac, a mortgage giant tied to the economic recession.
"(Gingrich) is taking an unprecedented beating ... I have just never seen so many negative, substantively negative ads aimed at one candidate from so many different angles," said Cary Covington, a professor of political science at the University of Iowa. "Ron Paul is just eviscerating Newt Gingrich in the ads."
Iowa political operatives cautioned that there was still plenty of time for more changes in the two weeks left before the nominating caucus, which is the first of the 2012 presidential campaign.
"Newt may have peaked at the right time or peaked just a little bit too early," said Will Rogers, one of the members of Gingrich's campaign team who resigned en masse in June amid frustration over how it was being run.
But Rogers, who has returned to support Gingrich as a volunteer and is heavily involved with the Republican Party, said polls only represented a snapshot in time and said it seemed that many Iowa voters still were undecided.
"You don't know where Iowans truly sit until January 3," Albrecht said. "There's an unprecedented level of uncertainty this late.
"Caucuses always surprise people at the end. One thing caucuses do is defy conventional wisdom. Someone always dramatically outperforms poll numbers and someone under performs."
Gingrich has run an unorthodox campaign, signing books at events and talking about topics ranging from the economy to brain research and lunar mining.
"His campaign has been one of speeches and ideas, not one as organized as the others. And it's been interesting to watch at public forums and speeches, that people have gravitated toward him and liked what he's had to say," said John Gilliland, of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry.
"But it's hard when you're trying to build infrastructure when you're behind the eight ball," he said.
Rogers said libertarian-leaning Paul was reaping the benefits of having a strong ground organization in Iowa - unlike Gingrich who has been scrambling to beef up his staff as he rose in the polls.
(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert and Lily Kuo in Washington; Writing by Deborah Charles; Editing by Bill Trott)
:yeah:
Obama has it locked up. Even though a real candidate will eventually win, this clown will have scared the moderates so badly that four more years are inevitable.
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:11:11 PM
Obama has it locked up. Even though a real candidate will eventually win, this clown will have scared the moderates so badly that four more years are inevitable.
I think Newt and Mitt's own rhetoric should be enough to do that.
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
He's also popular amongst pot heads and militias.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2011, 08:03:10 PM
He's also popular amongst pot heads and militias.
That's the same group. They're all assholes that think Ron Paul is going to stand up for the little guy, rather than allowing the big guy to contract the little guy into slavery.
:yeah:
:lol: Ron and Dennis were the only two US politicians who were going to meet with Marine Le Pen on her tour of the US, but he withdrew due to "timetable problems."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8862462/Marine-Le-Pen-snubbed-by-US-politicians.html
I feel ashamed but I kind of have a thing for the French far right. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
That's right. Only I have the plan to bring justice back to Wall Street.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
That's right. Only I have the plan to bring justice back to Wall Street.
You're a lawyer. Justice is an alien concept to you.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
That's right. Only I have the plan to bring justice back to Wall Street.
I thought that was Robispierre's plan?
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:03:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
That's right. Only I have the plan to bring justice back to Wall Street.
I thought that was Robispierre's plan?
Robespierre had tanks?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:03:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
That's right. Only I have the plan to bring justice back to Wall Street.
I thought that was Robispierre's plan?
Robespierre had tanks?
He had the guillotine, which in those days had equivalent shock value.
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:12:45 PM
He had the guillotine, which in those days had equivalent shock value.
I disagree.
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:12:45 PM
He had the guillotine, which in those days had equivalent shock value.
I disagree.
How do you get a clean decapitation using a tank?
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:19:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:12:45 PM
He had the guillotine, which in those days had equivalent shock value.
I disagree.
How do you get a clean decapitation using a tank?
Rolling tanks over people is far more shocking than a clean decapitation.
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:11:11 PM
Obama has it locked up. Even though a real candidate will eventually win, this clown will have scared the moderates so badly that four more years are inevitable.
I don't know. Obama's "I'm the best president on legislative and foreign policy accomplishments with the possible exceptions of Johnson, Abe and FDR" and Biden's "The Taliban isn't our enemy, per se" could gain traction.
It's kind of weird to me how an elected Congressman who could plausibly win the next two states is gonna get less airtime than the pizza guy who plagiarized pokemon.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 20, 2011, 12:14:58 AM
It's kind of weird to me how an elected Congressman who could plausibly win the next two states is gonna get less airtime than the pizza guy who plagiarized pokemon.
If he wins he'll get airtime.
So it has come to this.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 12:15:58 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 20, 2011, 12:14:58 AM
It's kind of weird to me how an elected Congressman who could plausibly win the next two states is gonna get less airtime than the pizza guy who plagiarized pokemon.
If he wins he'll get airtime.
Well of course he will, the Republican machine will be working overtime to destroy him.
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:03:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 19, 2011, 07:27:37 PM
I don't get it. Does Ron Paul support more farm subsidies or what?
No, but a certain class of dupe believes that Ron Paul will bring justice to Wall Street, when in fact he will finish bringing back the robber barons.
That's right. Only I have the plan to bring justice back to Wall Street.
I thought that was Robispierre's plan?
Ide intends to kill the father of Chemistry?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 10:05:15 PM
Robespierre had tanks?
He was also a poor (in both senses of the word) lawyer.
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 10:23:43 PM
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:19:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2011, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: citizen k on December 19, 2011, 10:12:45 PM
He had the guillotine, which in those days had equivalent shock value.
I disagree.
How do you get a clean decapitation using a tank?
Rolling tanks over people is far more shocking than a clean decapitation.
After the first 100 or so of the day, they're not so clean.
Even if Paul wins Iowa he won't get far. A long way to go and he won't find much traction elsewhere. I think he's slipped in the Iowa polls, last I saw today, not sure as that may have been a national poll.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2011, 02:54:58 AM
He was also a poor (in both senses of the word) lawyer.
That was because he had a sense of justice :frog:
QuoteIf you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology
Quote from: ulmont on December 20, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
QuoteIf you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology
I'm sorry, that article is simply not credible. It's based on arguments found in Paul's books and we have no evidence he actually wrote or even knew about the books that bear his name.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2011, 03:33:55 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 20, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
QuoteIf you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology
I'm sorry, that article is simply not credible. It's based on arguments found in Paul's books and we have no evidence he actually wrote or even knew about the books that bear his name.
:lmfao:
Quote from: ulmont on December 20, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
QuoteIf you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology
Wow that was a good article.
Quote from: Valmy on December 20, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 20, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
QuoteIf you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology
Wow that was a good article.
Yes I enjoyed that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM Here's Ron Paul telling us the CIA has now runs the US and has launched a Coup to gain that power. Probably an evil twin or something. Obviously not the real Ron Paul.
Ouch.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2011, 04:01:49 PM
Ouch.
Yeah. Raz proving his inability to understand metaphor is pretty painful.
Well why you are explaining that away, Here's some more.
Meet Alex Jones. Grade A nut. Truther, NWO conspiracy guy etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqN2EKuXX2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo29Oa-e61I&watch_response&fmt=18
Here's Ron Paul on his show, talking about how "they" arranged the whole thing and how things were "orchestrate", and soon we will be run from the Hague or something.
I suspect the very nature of the CIA leads to "CIA involvement" in lots of things the bosses don't know about.
Kind of like the Pakistanis harboring Bin Laden. Would any sane person in their government sanction that?
Quote from: Barrister on December 20, 2011, 03:44:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 20, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 20, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
QuoteIf you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology
Wow that was a good article.
Yes I enjoyed that.
I thought it was weak sauce.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 05:16:16 PM
I thought it was weak sauce.
I thought it was cogent, even if it is basically 2 points. The first one seems solid: why are we any more ready for zero taxation than for unrestricted immigration? Though I guess RP hedges in both quotes, the first is expressed positively (work towards) and the other negatively (not nearly ready for). The second point really just goes to the grand Anglo-American philosophical debate about where property rights come from and how to justify the ownership private property that emerged through theft/slavery/etc and family accumulation rather than Lockean acorn harvesting, and how to reconcile the coercion inherent in any scheme of property rights with an ideal of personal liberty. Not really that specific to RP, but I think the basic criticism is that his libertarianism doesn't grapple with the difficult questions that make it a worthwhile political philosophy.
Whoever lifts work visa requirements in the States will get my vote after I obtain citizenship. A sadly overlooked fact that would surely rock the status quo of American politics.
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
Whoever lifts work visa requirements in the States will get my vote after I obtain citizenship. A sadly overlooked fact that would surely rock the status quo of American politics.
I think it would definitely turn at least a few of us into single-issue voters. :)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 20, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
Whoever lifts work visa requirements in the States will get my vote after I obtain citizenship. A sadly overlooked fact that would surely rock the status quo of American politics.
I think it would definitely turn at least a few of us into single-issue voters. :)
Of course my comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I AM puzzled by the mechanics of immigration in the States.
In particular, given my limited look at it, it appears to be extremely full of hypocrisy.
You let countless masses of illegal mexicans in because they cheaply do the shitty work the citizens just feel too good for. Thereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.
All the while, the routes to gain entrance to your country as a legal, skilled contributor to your economy remain extremely rough, pretty much impossible to anyone but a select few.
Which is fine, I guess you have enough skilled unemployeds already. But doesn't it just betray and ban the very thing which gave your country the unprecented growth it had in it's past?
We prefer to keep our immigrants in the underclass so we can exploit them. If we let in too many smart people they might figure us out and begin competing with us.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 20, 2011, 06:02:09 PM
We prefer to keep our immigrants in the underclass so we can exploit them. If we let in too many smart people they might figure us out and begin competing with us.
:ph34r:
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
Whoever lifts work visa requirements in the States will get my vote after I obtain citizenship. A sadly overlooked fact that would surely rock the status quo of American politics.
Sorry. We're full.
Quote from: TamasWhich is fine, I guess you have enough skilled unemployeds already. But doesn't it just betray and ban the very thing which gave your country the unprecented growth it had in it's past?
Relying on imported labor while natives propsered is un-American? I don't think you'd pass the citizenship test.
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2011, 02:52:04 PM
Even if Paul wins Iowa he won't get far. A long way to go and he won't find much traction elsewhere. I think he's slipped in the Iowa polls, last I saw today, not sure as that may have been a national poll.
I think he could win in New Hampshire. He's already polling in the 20s - Romney's in the 40s - with momentum I don't think it'd be out of the question that they'd vote for the libertarian candidate.
If that were to happen all bets are off. It's difficult to see South Carolina voting for either Romney or Paul so that would probably be the battleground to become the 'anyone but' candidate.
Quote from: Valmy on December 20, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
Wow that was a good article.
As logic or sense, though, it was awful. The author engages in far more intellectual dishonesty than he accuses Ron Paul of. Paul talks about ideals, and acknowledges when they have problems in the real world, and Wilkerson argues that "Paul develops a keen sensitivity to complicated questions of feasibility, hemming and hawing his way to a convoluted compromise that would continue to affirm the systematic violation of the individual rights of foreigners who would like to live and work in America, and those of Americans who would like to live and work with them." Even paul acknowledges that rights are not absolute, and yet Wilkerson ignores this and chastises him for something he never said.
Wilkerson claims to "agree wholeheartedly" with Paul's assertion that "Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments." Wilkerson then engages in his own "hemming and hawing his way to a convoluted compromise" by arguing that we simply don't know "exactly what "justly acquired property" amounts to in a country built in no small part by slave labor on land stolen from indigenous people!" Wilkerson "wholeheartedly" endorses a principal which he then completely trashes.
Wilkerson claims that Paul "would have us believe that the enormous gains over the past several decades in racial and gender equality, the dramatic rise of mixed-race marriages, and the happy detente in the gender wars have all occurred
despite recent attempts to rectify centuries of legal oppression through law" (my bold) This is a classic strawman. Paul never said any such thing as far as I can tell, and Wilkerson makes no attempt whatever to show that he did.
Wilkerson is more on-target when he notes that "What good are taxes anyway when, as Paul argues, "[t]he only people who benefit are the bureaucrats, and the special interest recipients of government spending programs"? Recipients like poor kids who go to public schools." He could have written a whole article about that, and left out the intellectually dishonest arguments, and had a very solid piece. Pity he chose to simply be as ideologically rigid as the guy he is chastising for
his ideological rigidity.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2011, 06:18:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 20, 2011, 03:44:04 PM
Wow that was a good article.
Wilkerson "wholeheartedly" endorses a principal which he then completely trashes.]
:lol: You corrected for Yi's error from earlier today. Balance has been restored to the universe.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 20, 2011, 05:33:12 PM
I thought it was cogent, even if it is basically 2 points. The first one seems solid: why are we any more ready for zero taxation than for unrestricted immigration? Though I guess RP hedges in both quotes, the first is expressed positively (work towards) and the other negatively (not nearly ready for). The second point really just goes to the grand Anglo-American philosophical debate about where property rights come from and how to justify the ownership private property that emerged through theft/slavery/etc and family accumulation rather than Lockean acorn harvesting, and how to reconcile the coercion inherent in any scheme of property rights with an ideal of personal liberty. Not really that specific to RP, but I think the basic criticism is that his libertarianism doesn't grapple with the difficult questions that make it a worthwhile political philosophy.
I read more than two points.
He argues that support for low taxes and opposition to unlimited immigration is an internal inconsitency. Yet I've never heard Paul or any other self-proclaimed libertarian argue in favor of completely unlimited freedom, including the freedom to murder or rape.
He argues that property rights are undermined by questions of provenance and tenure. That's fine as far as it goes, but it demonstrates his lack of understanding of the "property" in property rights. It's not just real estate, like the author seems to believe. It also includes the fruits of ones labors, i.e. income. Principally income, since the context of Paul's comments is a discussion of federal taxation, of income.
He argues that Paul's opposition to civil rights legislation is based on racism. Go ahead and make that argument if you want to, but it's a bait and switch from the thesis he claims he's presening.
In the part about improvements in the lives of minorities, he seems to be lumping together the parts of the Civil Rights Act that protected voting rights and such with those that prohibited discrimination in private business. I think Goldwater objected to the second and not the first; I assume Paul does as well. It would certainly be bizarre if a self-proclaimed libertarian were opposed to the right to vote for certain people.
Why even have an interstate commerce clause if you're not gonna use it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 06:56:53 PM
He argues that support for low taxes and opposition to unlimited immigration is an internal inconsitency. Yet I've never heard Paul or any other self-proclaimed libertarian argue in favor of completely unlimited freedom, including the freedom to murder or rape.
I read the inconsistency as being that Paul endorses the idea that "All peaceful voluntary economic and social associations are permitted..." and that in an ideal libertarian world, borders would be "blurred," but that he pursues the tax issue unequivocally while hemming and hawing about immigration. Again, it doesn't seem to be a true inconsistency, but I think the author is aiming at the difference in rhetoric, which fits in with his bigger point that Paul is mainly concerned with the big money part of libertarianism, rather than the other radical parts that he supposedly endorses.
I don't know why the problems of where private property comes would be read as limited to real property in the piece, or in general. Institutional capital and family wealth come from somewhere, and the fruits of one's labor are always derived from interactions with both, so the it seems like the same basic problem is there, however you end up resolving it.
The civil rights stuff does seem more incoherent. Going off what grumbler said, I think RP might say that the benefits to minorities came from these reforms, rather than in spite of them as the author asserts he would say, but that the reforms were unethical anyways, and maybe that minorities would have benefited more/differently under some kind of libertarian scheme.
So Grumbler, what is your opinion of Paul and his ideology? You made arguments but never really shown your cards. What's your angle?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 20, 2011, 07:31:55 PM
I read the inconsistency as being that Paul endorses the idea that "All peaceful voluntary economic and social associations are permitted..." and that in an ideal libertarian world, borders would be "blurred," but that he pursues the tax issue unequivocally while hemming and hawing about immigration. Again, it doesn't seem to be a true inconsistency, but I think the author is aiming at the difference in rhetoric, which fits in with his bigger point that Paul is mainly concerned with the big money part of libertarianism, rather than the other radical parts that he supposedly endorses.
Voluntary associations is not at all a gotcha line in my eyes. If a country (the US) has laws against the immigration that suggests all parties are not entering into it voluntarily.
QuoteI don't know why the problems of where private property comes would be read as limited to real property in the piece, or in general. Institutional capital and family wealth come from somewhere, and the fruits of one's labor are always derived from interactions with both, so the it seems like the same basic problem is there, however you end up resolving it.
I don't know that the fruits of one's labors are always derived from interaction with family wealth. And I don't know that family wealth is always derived from misgotten real property. And I don't know what institutional capital means. Can you put that in bourgeois terms?
One of the problems with arguing against property rights on the basis that they were misgotten is that it assumes someone else possessed the property rights in the first place. He he.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2011, 06:18:53 PM
Wilkerson claims that Paul "would have us believe that the enormous gains over the past several decades in racial and gender equality, the dramatic rise of mixed-race marriages, and the happy detente in the gender wars have all occurred despite recent attempts to rectify centuries of legal oppression through law" (my bold) This is a classic strawman. Paul never said any such thing as far as I can tell, and Wilkerson makes no attempt whatever to show that he did.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
QuoteRon Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
My bold. I could see how Mr. Wilkerson came to this impression. I am assuming this web-page and the speech is legit. There is a slight chance that Lew Rockwell could have actually written it.
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2011, 05:54:23 PMThereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.
Okay, Grapes of Wrath.
Quote from: garbon on December 20, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2011, 05:54:23 PMThereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.
Okay, Grapes of Wrath.
Tamas's attitude to immigration seems extremely European.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2011, 07:55:40 PM
Voluntary associations is not at all a gotcha line in my eyes. If a country (the US) has laws against the immigration that suggests all parties are not entering into it voluntarily.
QuoteI don't know why the problems of where private property comes would be read as limited to real property in the piece, or in general. Institutional capital and family wealth come from somewhere, and the fruits of one's labor are always derived from interactions with both, so the it seems like the same basic problem is there, however you end up resolving it.
I don't know that the fruits of one's labors are always derived from interaction with family wealth. And I don't know that family wealth is always derived from misgotten real property. And I don't know what institutional capital means. Can you put that in bourgeois terms?
One of the problems with arguing against property rights on the basis that they were misgotten is that it assumes someone else possessed the property rights in the first place. He he.
I don't think I'm capable of debating the whole nature of private property at this point, in "bourgeois terms" or any other terms, if there are any. I was just trying to explicate what I thought the article had to say, and to try to practice posting amiably. :)
I thought you did very well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2011, 08:28:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 20, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2011, 05:54:23 PMThereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.
Okay, Grapes of Wrath.
Tamas's attitude to immigration seems extremely European.
One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 21, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.
Meh. It is always going to be harder in the Old World with their ethnic based states and identitiy. I am not sure any policies can change the fundamental basis for a society and states' existance.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 21, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.
Meh. It is always going to be harder in the Old World with their ethnic based states and identitiy. I am not sure any policies can change the fundamental basis for a society and states' existance.
Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 09:55:34 AM
Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.
Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality. I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans? Why else does it exist at all? An interesting dilemma.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 09:55:34 AM
Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.
Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality. I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans? Why else does it exist at all? An interesting dilemma.
To administer the territories of the country called Germany? Who else would do it? Not like libertarianism works outside of Baen's stable of hack authors' masturbation books.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 09:55:34 AM
Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.
Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality. I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans? Why else does it exist at all? An interesting dilemma.
Well on some level I suppose that's the bit about the EU and some people's hopes for it. On the other - I'm not sure that it is anymore interesting that any of the many states that exist for non-ethnic reasons. (See many of the American nations - and African ones to boot. Actually even pickup India.)
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 09:55:34 AM
Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.
Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality. I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans? Why else does it exist at all? An interesting dilemma.
The notion, while widespread, has always been somewhat problematic.
The history of modernity is writ in the tension between ethno-nationalism and liberal universalism.
There were times, not so long ago, that a state was primarily the domain of a given crown and secondarily a dominion of a religion. When these two stopped making sense for the population, -surprise surprise- national identity became the prime importance.
We (well, probably not us, but a future generation) will see the day when national identity will be as obscure and secondary as religious is in Europe now.
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 10:04:21 AM
On the other - I'm not sure that it is anymore interesting that any of the many states that exist for non-ethnic reasons. (See many of the American nations - and African ones to boot. Actually even pickup India.)
On the contrary it is far easier fur us over here. African nations have all sorts of problems because of ethnic issues, but supposedly because they are NOT based on ethnicity and thus struggle to get real national solidarity. Same for India actually. The very fact India exists at all is rather miraculous. A very unexpected positive consequence for the otherwise dreary history of the Brits in India.
The problem in the New World is around race not ethnicity. Thanks to our particular historical baggage.
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2011, 10:20:18 AM
We (well, probably not us, but a future generation) will see the day when national identity will be as obscure and secondary as religious is in Europe now.
Maybe so. But it needs to be invented. The current effort, the EU as garbon mentioned, has not exactly been a smashing success so far. Euro identity based on shared Euro values is not winning hearts and minds.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 21, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
To administer the territories of the country called Germany? Who else would do it?
Yeah it is hard to get people to pay taxes and sacrifice in war for an administrative district.
'Our administration over all! Over all in the world!' just doesn't inspire.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 21, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
To administer the territories of the country called Germany? Who else would do it?
Yeah it is hard to get people to pay taxes and sacrifice in war for an administrative district.
'Our administration over all! Over all in the world!' just doesn't inspire.
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Yes but they need to be created. The political principals and symbols behind the German Federal Republic maybe something to stir pride in the hearts of its ethnic Turk citizens. But what might those be? It is a transition. That is what I have been trying to get at. The ideas of ethnicity and nationality have been ingrained for a few centuries now.
I also fail to see where I said they MUST be based on ethnicity, just in the Old World they are as it stands right now. So my point was, given that fact, it is hard to judge them too harshly for struggling with the immigration issue more than we have. We do not have the burden of an ethnically based state.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Yes but they need to be created. The political principals and symbols behind the German Federal Republic maybe something to stir pride in the hearts of its ethnic Turk citizens. But what might those be? It is a transition. That is what I have been trying to get at. The ideas of ethnicity and nationality have been ingrained for a few centuries now.
I also fail to see where I said they MUST be based on ethnicity, just in the Old World they are as it stands right now. So my point was, given that fact, it is hard to judge them too harshly for struggling with the immigration issue more than we have. We do not have the burden of an ethnically based state.
I don't disagree.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Yes but they need to be created. The political principals and symbols behind the German Federal Republic maybe something to stir pride in the hearts of its ethnic Turk citizens. But what might those be? It is a transition. That is what I have been trying to get at. The ideas of ethnicity and nationality have been ingrained for a few centuries now.
War. War seems to bond people in a us versus them sort of way. the new Gerky (uhm, Turmany?) must war against another nation and build bonds. it's the only way to go forward.
Quote from: HVC on December 21, 2011, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Yes but they need to be created. The political principals and symbols behind the German Federal Republic maybe something to stir pride in the hearts of its ethnic Turk citizens. But what might those be? It is a transition. That is what I have been trying to get at. The ideas of ethnicity and nationality have been ingrained for a few centuries now.
War. War seems to bond people in a us versus them sort of way. the new Gerky (uhm, Turmany?) must war against another nation and build bonds. it's the only way to go forward.
The War of 1812 is alleged to have had that effect in both Canada and the US. I suggest that Turmany declare war on Canada forthwith. :D
Quote from: HVC on December 21, 2011, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Yes but they need to be created. The political principals and symbols behind the German Federal Republic maybe something to stir pride in the hearts of its ethnic Turk citizens. But what might those be? It is a transition. That is what I have been trying to get at. The ideas of ethnicity and nationality have been ingrained for a few centuries now.
War. War seems to bond people in a us versus them sort of way. the new Gerky (uhm, Turmany?) must war against another nation and build bonds. it's the only way to go forward.
Yes. Well, if not war, then hatred.
Earh could sure use some hostile aliens from space. Would unite the planet. :cool:
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
Yes but they need to be created. The political principals and symbols behind the German Federal Republic maybe something to stir pride in the hearts of its ethnic Turk citizens. But what might those be? It is a transition. That is what I have been trying to get at. The ideas of ethnicity and nationality have been ingrained for a few centuries now.
I also fail to see where I said they MUST be based on ethnicity, just in the Old World they are as it stands right now. So my point was, given that fact, it is hard to judge them too harshly for struggling with the immigration issue more than we have. We do not have the burden of an ethnically based state.
A nation can also be based on a shared culture, rather than ethnicity. Quebecois nationalists claim that is what they would like to create - a Quebecois nation based on a shared language and culture, but regardless of whether your ethnicity is French, African, Anglo, or whatever. Britain is something of this model as well.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 10:42:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 10:04:21 AM
On the other - I'm not sure that it is anymore interesting that any of the many states that exist for non-ethnic reasons. (See many of the American nations - and African ones to boot. Actually even pickup India.)
On the contrary it is far easier fur us over here. African nations have all sorts of problems because of ethnic issues, but supposedly because they are NOT based on ethnicity and thus struggle to get real national solidarity. Same for India actually. The very fact India exists at all is rather miraculous. A very unexpected positive consequence for the otherwise dreary history of the Brits in India.
The problem in the New World is around race not ethnicity. Thanks to our particular historical baggage.
But my point was that said countries can still exist despite not having a shared ethnicity. They certainly struggle with it but nevertheless they exist. And I guess my early reading on what you said made it seem as though it was largely fruitless in such old world places to try and construct new, national identities with non-ethnic bases. My apologies.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:12:04 PM
A nation can also be based on a shared culture, rather than ethnicity. Quebecois nationalists claim that is what they would like to create - a Quebecois nation based on a shared language and culture, but regardless of whether your ethnicity is French, African, Anglo, or whatever. Britain is something of this model as well.
Where did I give the impression I thought that a nation HAD to be based on ethnicity? I was not saying that at all.
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:29:37 AM
The War of 1812 is alleged to have had that effect in both Canada and the US. I suggest that Turmany declare war on Canada forthwith. :D
Canada is good, but poland is closer. And historically both ethnicities have a history of war against the poles, so even greater bonding potential.
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 12:20:06 PM
But my point was that said countries can still exist despite not having a shared ethnicity. They certainly struggle with it but nevertheless they exist. And I guess my early reading on what you said made it seem as though it was largely fruitless in such old world places to try and construct new, national identities with non-ethnic bases. My apologies.
It does seem like I gave that impression :blush:
Quote from: HVC on December 21, 2011, 12:22:19 PM
Canada is good, but poland is closer. And historically both ethnicities have a history of war against the poles, so even greater bonding potential.
The new symbol of germano-turkish unity: Martinus. ;)
If fighting Poland unites nations, then half of Eurasia would be united by now.
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2011, 01:41:27 PM
If fighting Poland unites nations, then half of Eurasia would be united by now.
:lmfao: Well done!
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2011, 11:48:48 AM
Earh could sure use some hostile aliens from space. Would unite the planet. :cool:
Well, sure, as it did all the West African blacks in the Americas.
So I saw in the news shown in the elevator today that Ron Paul has changed his story. Now he's saying that he wrote particular sections of his 90s newsletters.
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
So I saw in the news shown in the elevator today that Ron Paul has changed his story. Now he's saying that he wrote particular sections of his 90s newsletters.
Is that a changed story? I thought he had been maintaining he didn't write the racist parts.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 21, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.
Meh. It is always going to be harder in the Old World with their ethnic based states and identitiy. I am not sure any policies can change the fundamental basis for a society and states' existance.
I think shared ethnicity is overstated when it comes to the national identity in Europe - it is often used as a shorthand for a collection of other factors, most of which are cultural. Many assimilated (especially white) ethnicities are considered a part of the dominant culture in a given country, despite having a different ethnicity (look at Rotschilds in France for example).
Of course the fact that there is a strong connection between culture and ethnicity eventually leads to a convergence - not unlike the racial politics in the US which is largely class politics.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
not unlike the racial politics in the US which is largely class politics.
Yeah I already mentioned that. Over here race tends to be the bigger thing. But fortunately we did name our country 'Whitemanland' or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2011, 09:34:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
So I saw in the news shown in the elevator today that Ron Paul has changed his story. Now he's saying that he wrote particular sections of his 90s newsletters.
Is that a changed story? I thought he had been maintaining he didn't write the racist parts.
I think so. I thought his most recent version was that he didn't write was published under his name - he was too busy with his practice.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
QuoteIn 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)
When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.
Oh wait - what I'm seeing in recent news articles is that he's saying that he didn't write any of them. I guess that's similar to what he said in '08.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2011, 12:11:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2011, 09:34:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
So I saw in the news shown in the elevator today that Ron Paul has changed his story. Now he's saying that he wrote particular sections of his 90s newsletters.
Is that a changed story? I thought he had been maintaining he didn't write the racist parts.
I think so. I thought his most recent version was that he didn't write was published under his name - he was too busy with his practice.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
QuoteIn 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)
When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.
Oh wait - what I'm seeing in recent news articles is that he's saying that he didn't write any of them. I guess that's similar to what he said in '08.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/
How do we know he wrote - or is even aware of - the replies attributed to him on this issue? :hmm:
Strange, normally when I post something like this Grumbler patronizes me, laughs at me, or just insults me. Maybe he forgot about the thread. Same thing with Habakkuk, he just bailed after I posted Ron Paul's interview with the paranoid NWO types. What's the deal here?
Maybe they got tired of the political bullshit. Maybe they got tired of YOU.
I support Raz. :)
I like the kid too. But the political humping of the leg and polistalking does get old.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 22, 2011, 05:53:00 PM
I like the kid too. But the political humping of the leg and polistalking does get old.
Know what's old? You, pops.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2011, 05:54:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 22, 2011, 05:53:00 PM
I like the kid too. But the political humping of the leg and polistalking does get old.
Know what's old? You, pops.
Goddamn right. Get off my lawn.
This whole forum is old.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 22, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
Maybe they got tired of the political bullshit. Maybe they got tired of YOU.
Yeah, Raz's problem is that he takes too long to corner people in arguments. By the time he finally does, the people he argues with are exactly at a point when they get tired of him.
Well, Raz does tend to beat arguments to death, but then so does Grumbler so I don't think fatigue is an issue here.
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2011, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 22, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
Maybe they got tired of the political bullshit. Maybe they got tired of YOU.
Yeah, Raz's problem is that he takes too long to corner people in arguments. By the time he finally does, the people he argues with are exactly at a point when they get tired of him.
I'm not a quick thinker. I suppose it is possible that people become embarrassed by being cornered by nitwit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 22, 2011, 06:28:19 PM
Well, Raz does tend to beat arguments to death, but then so does Grumbler so I don't think fatigue is an issue here.
Raz has a long memory so it is more difficult for Grumbler to play his semantic u-turns when it is clear he is wrong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2011, 07:40:18 PM
Raz has a long memory so it is more difficult for Grumbler to play his semantic u-turns when it is clear he is wrong.
:lmfao:
Okay, Mr "this novel is history" man. Let's see a "semantic u-turn" on my part. Shouldn't be hard to find, if that is a common tactic of mine.
I have given up responding to Raz because he is purely a "gotcha" debater, and doesn't read what it is he thinks he is being "gotcha" about. It's a waste of time. He doesn't argue positions, just snippets. Paul claims that the CIA has staged a "coup" in warfighting because it is the one flying drones and firing missiles, not the US military, and Raz claims that Ron Paul thinks the CIA has overthrown the US government. Paul may be a wacko, but Raz isn't demonstrating that; he is instead demonstrating that he doesn't really care what Ron Paul says or thinks, just what Raz can play "gotcha" with. It is pointless and silly, and I invite him to ignore me as much as I ignore him (and his crony Fate).
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2011, 08:02:13 PM
Let's see a "semantic u-turn" on my part. Shouldn't be hard to find, if that is a common tactic of mine.
I have given up responding to Raz because he is purely a "gotcha" debater, and doesn't read what it is he thinks he is being "gotcha" about. It's a waste of time. He doesn't argue positions, just snippets. Paul claims that the CIA has staged a "coup" in warfighting because it is the one flying drones and firing missiles, not the US military, and Raz claims that Ron Paul thinks the CIA has overthrown the US government. Paul may be a wacko, but Raz isn't demonstrating that; he is instead demonstrating that he doesn't really care what Ron Paul says or thinks, just what Raz can play "gotcha" with. It is pointless and silly, and I invite him to ignore me as much as I ignore him (and his crony Fate).
Frankly I could not care less why you say you ignore Raz. I do find it amusing that you lack the self awareness to realize that your usual sementic arguments have became one of the most recongizable languish memes.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2011, 08:02:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2011, 07:40:18 PM
Raz has a long memory so it is more difficult for Grumbler to play his semantic u-turns when it is clear he is wrong.
:lmfao:
Okay, Mr "this novel is history" man. Let's see a "semantic u-turn" on my part. Shouldn't be hard to find, if that is a common tactic of mine.
I have given up responding to Raz because he is purely a "gotcha" debater, and doesn't read what it is he thinks he is being "gotcha" about. It's a waste of time. He doesn't argue positions, just snippets. Paul claims that the CIA has staged a "coup" in warfighting because it is the one flying drones and firing missiles, not the US military, and Raz claims that Ron Paul thinks the CIA has overthrown the US government. Paul may be a wacko, but Raz isn't demonstrating that; he is instead demonstrating that he doesn't really care what Ron Paul says or thinks, just what Raz can play "gotcha" with. It is pointless and silly, and I invite him to ignore me as much as I ignore him (and his crony Fate).
Very well, but if you are going to ignore me please do so consistently. Don't jump into a thread, belittle me or insult me, and then just leave. When you join in, I'm given the false impression that you are being serious and not trolling, and then you go and break my heart. I know I should know better, but I've always been a fool that hopes that people change. Incidentally "Gotcha debater" describes you very well. You've posted several times in this thread, but never actually given us a real idea what you are arguing for. Most of your posts have been just to tell me that I am wrong. I asked you point blank what your opinion is of Dr. Paul and you refused to comment.
The quote from Dr. Paul I found goes like this
QuoteThere's been a coup, have you heard? It's the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They're the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. ... And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. ... And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They're in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators ... We need to take out the CIA.
I don't see the "warfighting" in there anywhere. I don't think the drug bussiness has traditionally been considered a military enterprise, so I think when he says "the CIA runs everything," I think he means more then the CIA has usurped military functions.
As I said, I'm a slow thinker, and it just occurred to me that Grumbler accusing me of "Gotcha" style debating may just be his round-about way of conceding that his statements were incorrect. If that is so, then I thank him for his gracious concession.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2011, 08:14:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2011, 08:02:13 PM
Let's see a "semantic u-turn" on my part. Shouldn't be hard to find, if that is a common tactic of mine.
I do find it amusing that you lack the self awareness to realize that your usual sementic arguments have became one of the most recongizable languish memes.
So is that a "no, I can't find any examples but I am going to insist that it is true" weasel, or is this a semantic u-turn to change the your contention from being that I engage in "semantic U-turns" to that I care about word meanings?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2011, 08:52:44 PM
As I said, I'm a slow thinker, and it just occurred to me that Grumbler accusing me of "Gotcha" style debating may just be his round-about way of conceding that his statements were incorrect. If that is so, then I thank him for his gracious concession.
:D
Yep, typical Grumbler bs. If you point out he is wrong he does one of two things. He accuses you of a gotcha style - which ironically is his speciality over the last couple years or he falls back on semantics to argue he said no such thing and that actually he said the opposite.
One wonders whether he puts on the performance as part of an internet personality ala Neil playing the ethnic Albertan or whether this is the real Grumbler.
Anyway - Ron does seem to be getting a lot of heat on this issue now.
Quote from: garbon on December 24, 2011, 07:58:02 PM
Anyway - Ron does seem to be getting a lot of heat on this issue now.
I blame the inner-city criminal blacks and the perfidious jews.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 21, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2011, 09:55:34 AM
Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.
Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality. I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans? Why else does it exist at all? An interesting dilemma.
To administer the territories of the country called Germany? Who else would do it?
France would do it. :)
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
I also fail to see where I said they MUST be based on ethnicity, just in the Old World they are as it stands right now. So my point was, given that fact, it is hard to judge them too harshly for struggling with the immigration issue more than we have. We do not have the burden of an ethnically based state.
France is not an ethnically based state, both in theory and in practice. The struggles with immigration have a lot more to do with piss-poor urban planning, high unemployement and religious issues in the public sphere. France's mission civilisatrice is universal after all :sleep:
Not counting the 15% of racist tards that are present in every western country.
Quote from: PDH on December 24, 2011, 08:48:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 24, 2011, 07:58:02 PM
Anyway - Ron does seem to be getting a lot of heat on this issue now.
I blame the inner-city criminal blacks and the perfidious jews.
:D
Quote from: Zoupa on December 24, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
France is not an ethnically based state, both in theory and in practice. The struggles with immigration have a lot more to do with piss-poor urban planning, high unemployement and religious issues in the public sphere. France's mission civilisatrice is universal after all :sleep:
Not counting the 15% of racist tards that are present in every western country.
Really? I would have thought that France is a primary example of a Nation State. France has sought to homogenize their population for a long time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 23, 2011, 01:14:08 PM
Yep, typical Grumbler bs. If you point out he is wrong he does one of two things. He accuses you of a gotcha style - which ironically is his speciality over the last couple years or he falls back on semantics to argue he said no such thing and that actually he said the opposite.
So, now you are shifting away from the "semantic u-turn" accusation (which you couldn't back when challenged on it) to claiming I use the "gotcha" style of argumentation?
I challenge you to find examples of that, as well. Are you going to weasel out of every challenge I make, or are you going to back this one with some examples (as I did when I pointed out Raz's "gotcha" style)?
Nothing from novels, please. That doesn't fly here.
Careful, CC. If you prove him wrong he may classify you as a "Gotcha Debater" and start ignoring you.
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 23, 2011, 01:14:08 PM
Yep, typical Grumbler bs. If you point out he is wrong he does one of two things. He accuses you of a gotcha style - which ironically is his speciality over the last couple years or he falls back on semantics to argue he said no such thing and that actually he said the opposite.
So, now you are shifting away from the "semantic u-turn" accusation (which you couldn't back when challenged on it) to claiming I use the "gotcha" style of argumentation?
I challenge you to find examples of that, as well. Are you going to weasel out of every challenge I make, or are you going to back this one with some examples (as I did when I pointed out Raz's "gotcha" style)?
Nothing from novels, please. That doesn't fly here.
what was this obscure boat called again?
Petrucca or something? I don't remember, but your argument there
was is hilarious example :lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on December 24, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Patriotic feelings need not be based on shared ethnicity. Shared allegiance to a political system and/or its symbols will suffice - look at the US.
I also fail to see where I said they MUST be based on ethnicity, just in the Old World they are as it stands right now. So my point was, given that fact, it is hard to judge them too harshly for struggling with the immigration issue more than we have. We do not have the burden of an ethnically based state.
France is not an ethnically based state, both in theory and in practice. The struggles with immigration have a lot more to do with piss-poor urban planning, high unemployement and religious issues in the public sphere. France's mission civilisatrice is universal after all :sleep:
Not counting the 15% of racist tards that are present in every western country.
Germany, which Valmy used as an example earlier, also shows quite well how the "ethnic state" concept is quite blurred and meaningless, and I am not just talking about immigrants. The "German nation" has been ruled by a single German state for less than 100 years in total, so it is hardly an established concept/entity, and the fact that countries like Austria remain out of it (with Austrians being, arguably, more closely related to Bavarians, culture-and-ethnicity-wise, than Bavarians are to Westfalians) shows that it hardly is a country that could lay a claim of being one for all German people, except perhaps only symbolically.
Question: Why is Martinus so fucking stupid?
Quote from: szmik on December 25, 2011, 06:13:28 PM
what was this obscure boat called again? Petrucca or something? I don't remember, but your argument there was is hilarious example :lol:
They were pinnaces, or dispatch boats. Some guy writing a wikipedia article used some obscure French (iirc) word for them, but I don't remember what it was.
Not sure what was hilarious about my argument that it wasn't impossible for the Armada to have succeeded (which I was debating with Malthus, and his arguments were based on a wikipedia article). Maybe you can enlighten me?
Quote from: Neil on December 25, 2011, 07:23:38 PM
Question: Why is Martinus so fucking stupid?
Lack of education, I am guessing. He is partially correct on the main point (that the concept of the ethnic state is very blurry at best) but his idea that it is meaningless, or that the tensions between the concepts of nations and states hasn't been a major source of conflict in European history, is mind-boggling.
Quote from: Neil on December 25, 2011, 07:23:38 PM
Question: Why is Martinus so fucking stupid?
I suspect it's partially because he tries to present himself as an enlightened intellectual. The yawning gap between what he tries to be and what he actually is is so huge it creates an impression of utter stupidity. Sadly Marty is also a Narcissistic egotist so I don't think any of what what we say really sinks in. I suspect he promptly forgets every time he makes a fool of himself as a defense mechanism.
Quote from: szmik on December 25, 2011, 06:13:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 23, 2011, 01:14:08 PM
Yep, typical Grumbler bs. If you point out he is wrong he does one of two things. He accuses you of a gotcha style - which ironically is his speciality over the last couple years or he falls back on semantics to argue he said no such thing and that actually he said the opposite.
So, now you are shifting away from the "semantic u-turn" accusation (which you couldn't back when challenged on it) to claiming I use the "gotcha" style of argumentation?
I challenge you to find examples of that, as well. Are you going to weasel out of every challenge I make, or are you going to back this one with some examples (as I did when I pointed out Raz's "gotcha" style)?
Nothing from novels, please. That doesn't fly here.
what was this obscure boat called again? Petrucca or something? I don't remember, but your argument there was is hilarious example :lol:
Truely a Languish classic. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: szmik on December 25, 2011, 06:13:28 PM
what was this obscure boat called again? Petrucca or something? I don't remember, but your argument there was is hilarious example :lol:
They were pinnaces, or dispatch boats. Some guy writing a wikipedia article used some obscure French (iirc) word for them, but I don't remember what it was.
Not sure what was hilarious about my argument that it wasn't impossible for the Armada to have succeeded (which I was debating with Malthus, and his arguments were based on a wikipedia article). Maybe you can enlighten me?
Go back to that discussion maybe and read it cold?
Problem is you're an argument black hole. :)
Enlightening you is simply pointless, it seems you are unable to ever admit your wrong position. I know better ways to waste my time. :sleep:
Quote from: szmik on December 26, 2011, 05:43:46 AM
Problem is you're an argument black hole. :)
Enlightening you is simply pointless, it seems you are unable to ever admit your wrong position. I know better ways to waste my time. :sleep:
:lol: Okay. So long as your arguments are pure
ad hominem, I won't bother taking them seriously. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2011, 12:58:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 24, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
France is not an ethnically based state, both in theory and in practice. The struggles with immigration have a lot more to do with piss-poor urban planning, high unemployement and religious issues in the public sphere. France's mission civilisatrice is universal after all :sleep:
Not counting the 15% of racist tards that are present in every western country.
Really? I would have thought that France is a primary example of a Nation State. France has sought to homogenize their population for a long time.
Homogenize language and some core values. Not culture or "race".
Nobody said anything about "race". France made a great effort to destroy variant cultures in it's borders. They were largely successful.
Depends what you mean by culture. The bits of France I've been to all feel very distinct.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 01:18:34 PM
Nobody said anything about "race". France made a great effort to destroy variant cultures in it's borders. They were largely successful.
Not really, no.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 26, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 01:18:34 PM
Nobody said anything about "race". France made a great effort to destroy variant cultures in it's borders. They were largely successful.
Not really, no.
Oh, how many native speakers of Breton are there? How many were there a hundred years ago? What percentage of the Brittany spoke French prior to the French Revolution. And what is that percent now? Actually, what is the percent of population of what is now Metropolitan France spoke French prior to the French Revolution? I've seen the number of around 50% thrown around.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 26, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 01:18:34 PM
Nobody said anything about "race". France made a great effort to destroy variant cultures in it's borders. They were largely successful.
Not really, no.
Oh, how many native speakers of Breton are there? How many were there a hundred years ago? What percentage of the Brittany spoke French prior to the French Revolution. And what is that percent now? Actually, what is the percent of population of what is now Metropolitan France spoke French prior to the French Revolution? I've seen the number of around 50% thrown around.
Let me repeat, since you chose to argue something I didn't say:
Homogenize language and some core values. Not culture or "race".
I never said race, but I think destroying someone's language is a huge part of destroying someone's culture.
I think it's okay.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 01:28:46 PM
I think it's okay.
Me too, though it does sound kind of odd coming from a Francophone living in Quebec.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 06:21:41 AM
Homogenize language and some core values. Not culture or "race".
Yeah, language and core values are not cultural.
Quote from: citizen k on December 27, 2011, 01:39:33 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 06:21:41 AM
Homogenize language and some core values. Not culture or "race".
Yeah, language and core values are not cultural.
They weren't real languages, just some dialects and patois. :frog:
Plus we let them keep their folkloric shit. Good for tourism.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 27, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 01:28:46 PM
I think it's okay.
Me too, though it does sound kind of odd coming from a Francophone living in Quebec.
Canada doesn't have a mission civilisatrice.
Also, french is superioir to english in every way imaginable.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
Also, french is superioir to english in every way imaginable.
I'm not sure I agree. The French language is saddled with the people who speak it.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 27, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 01:28:46 PM
I think it's okay.
Me too, though it does sound kind of odd coming from a Francophone living in Quebec.
Canada doesn't have a mission civilisatrice.
Also, french is superioir to english in every way imaginable.
Un plus petit vocabulaire? L'inutilite de genre en francais?
Also, I forget what it is, but isn't there a whole tense that isn't available in French? Present progressive, je pense?
I mean, it's a fine language. Silver medal. :P
Quote from: Zoupa on December 24, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
France is not an ethnically based state, both in theory and in practice. The struggles with immigration have a lot more to do with piss-poor urban planning, high unemployement and religious issues in the public sphere. France's mission civilisatrice is universal after all :sleep:
Not counting the 15% of racist tards that are present in every western country.
If France is not an ethnically based state then no state is ethnically based. The French ethnic group was formed by the merger of Gauls with Franks and Burgundians. French national identity started to emerge during the 100 Years War.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 03:16:32 PM
Also, I forget what it is, but isn't there a whole tense that isn't available in French? Present progressive, je pense?
WTF does an Indian do when he's speaking French? :hmm:
I don't get it.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 04:09:29 PM
I don't get it.
I am getting it. Apu is getting it. Why are you not getting it?
Okay, so Indians overuse/misuse the present progressive. Fair enough.
Quote from: WikiFrench does not have a continuous aspect per se; events that English would describe using its continuous aspect, French would describe using a neutral aspect. That being said, French can express a continuous sense using the periphrastic construction être en train de ("to be in the middle of"); for example, English's "we were eating" might be expressed in French either as nous étions en train de manger, or as simply nous mangions.
An exception is in relating events that took place in the past: the imperfect has a continuous aspect in relation to the simple (historic) past; e.g. nous mangions quand il frappa à la porte ("we were eating when he knocked at the door"). However, the passé composé is more often used to denote past events with a neutral aspect in a non-narrative context.
Quebec French often expresses a continuous sense using the periphrastic construction être après (lit. "to be after"); for example, English's "we were eating" might be expressed in Quebec French either as nous étions après manger, or as simply nous mangions (imparfait).
I guess subcons in Quebec say "we were after to eat."
I really don't get how Spanish has a perfectly functional PP ("Yo estoy hablando en el presente progressivo," "Nos estamos corriendo con los sombras de la noche") but French doesn't.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
Also, french is superioir to english in every way imaginable.
Well, except as a form of communication.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2011, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 24, 2011, 09:15:04 PM
France is not an ethnically based state, both in theory and in practice. The struggles with immigration have a lot more to do with piss-poor urban planning, high unemployement and religious issues in the public sphere. France's mission civilisatrice is universal after all :sleep:
Not counting the 15% of racist tards that are present in every western country.
If France is not an ethnically based state then no state is ethnically based. The French ethnic group was formed by the merger of Gauls with Franks and Burgundians. French national identity started to emerge during the 100 Years War.
That's nice, but it doesn't mean 2011 France is an ethnically based state. That ended in 1789.
I'd say it really started around that time. After all, Louis XVI changed his title from King of France to King of the French. France is a geographic construct, French is an ethnic one. Napoleon followed in his footsteps when he declared himself Emperor of the French. It reflects a shift in ideology about the importance of ethnicity and the state.
Iirc, the change in nomenclature for the king wasn't about ethnicity and rather about the rights of citizens limiting what royal power could effect within France.
So the King couldn't effect people who weren't "French"?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 08:00:56 PM
So the King couldn't effect people who weren't "French"?
The change doesn't make a lot of grammatical sense to me either, but that was what I was told in reading about the period. I think it's something to the effect that the roi had to respond to the needs of the French people, rather than "France" as an abstract concept.
I think it reflects a rise of nationalism in Europe. I think some other monarches changed their titles. Such as the Swedish King (but then, he was also French).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2011, 03:57:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 03:16:32 PM
Also, I forget what it is, but isn't there a whole tense that isn't available in French? Present progressive, je pense?
WTF does an Indian do when he's speaking French? :hmm:
Puts the children of the Grey Hair under his knife, so the Grey Hair will know his seed is wiped out forever?
I don't know, Johnny. What DOES an Indian do when he's speaking French?
QuoteOSCEOLA, Iowa -- In what the Texas governor calls a "transformation," Rick Perry on Tuesday said that he has reversed his acceptance of abortion in some severe circumstances, saying that he now opposes the procedure even in cases of rape and incest.
Perry said the change came after seeing the "Gift of Life" film produced by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He told an audience of Iowans at Clark Electric Co-op in Osceola that he was moved by the story of a woman who introduced the film during a screening earlier this month in Des Moines.
"She said, 'I am the product of rape.' And she said 'my life has worth,'" Perry said of his exchange with the woman. "It was a powerful moment."
The Texas governor made the statement in response to a question from Joshua Verwers, a pastor at Full Faith Christian Center in Chariton, who noted that Perry had recently signed a stringent Personhood USA pledge that urges signatories to oppose abortion "without exception and without compromise."
Candidates Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have also signed the pledge.
Verwers said after the event that he was initially skeptical of Perry's flip on the position but that the governor's answer was "too perfect" and "sincere" to have come from anywhere but Perry's own heart.
"I do believe it was a sincere answer and that he has converted his position and that he would support personhood," the pastor told reporters.
It won't be long now that the "who is the biggest religious biggot" race escalates into talk of banning condoms.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 09:07:45 PM
I think it reflects a rise of nationalism in Europe. I think some other monarches changed their titles. Such as the Swedish King (but then, he was also French).
He was a Bonapartist. Napoleon was also the Emperor of the French. These changes happened during or as a result of the revolution. Although you are both right in the sense, as nationalism is originally about the recognition of nations as actors and not mere objects of the international stage. As such, the King of the Swedes is a leader/representative of the interests of the Swedish people/nation, not some abstract concept of the "crown".
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 06:30:09 PM
That's nice, but it doesn't mean 2011 France is an ethnically based state. That ended in 1789.
Then explain to me why all men are required to wear Speedos at public swimming pools. :contract:
It's a core value.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 07:48:23 PM
I'd say it really started around that time. After all, Louis XVI changed his title from King of France to King of the French. France is a geographic construct, French is an ethnic one. Napoleon followed in his footsteps when he declared himself Emperor of the French. It reflects a shift in ideology about the importance of ethnicity and the state.
There's nothing ethnic about 'French'. 'Frenchness' is an all-encompassing category for citizens of France. It's defined by Republican values, the French language and certain vision of French culture. All of those have, to a greater or lesser extent, emerged through political change rather than in response to social conditions. So, I'd suggest, that Occitan culture is ground up whereas there is an elite, prescribed version of French culture that attaches to 'Frenchness'. France is theoretically the least racially or ethnically involved nation in Europe if not the world. Theoretically there's no equivalent to Italian-American in France, you're French and that's that. If you want to spend your time doing Breton folk dances or listening to storytellers then that's fine but it doesn't make you Breton-French or Arabic-French, you're simply French and no different from a cultural dilettante from the region who enjoys regionalism.
Other countries in Europe are less extreme than the French but I do think they're all hovering around there and increasingly heading in that direction. As so often happens the French impose this as an elite ideology, eventually the rest of Europe copies more democratically on the ground. I don't know that many European nations could be described as ethnically based any more.
Hogwash Shelf. The concept of Frenchness predates the Republic.
So?
So commonly held beliefs and definitions don't change by government proclaimation.
If everyone is French, what was all the fuss about Dreyfus?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 01:28:37 PM
Theoretically there's no equivalent to Italian-American in France, you're French and that's that. If you want to spend your time doing Breton folk dances or listening to storytellers then that's fine but it doesn't make you Breton-French or Arabic-French, you're simply French and no different from a cultural dilettante from the region who enjoys regionalism.
And that's the problem of using theory to describe realities. Besides be labeled African-American doesn't make one less "ethnically" American. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 01:40:09 PM
So commonly held beliefs and definitions don't change by government proclaimation.
No but they change over time. The ideas of Frenchness in the V Republic are overwhelmingly based on the ideas of the Republic. The idea that modern French nationalism - when the country is led by a man who's ethnically Hungarian, Jewish and Greek - is somehow based on the ethnic merger of Gauls and Burgundians during a barely remembered Medieval war (in popular discourse) is laughable and absurd.
QuoteIf everyone is French, what was all the fuss about Dreyfus?
I don't think Republican Frenchness was settled by then. I think the entire 19th century and much of early 20th century French history can be read as a dispute about what sort of nation France was to be. There was a lot of settling from the Revolution going on. Now I think it's settled. The legitimists and the reactionaries lost. Frenchness came to be defined in the tradition of the Jacobins, Hugo, Gambetta, Zola, Mendes-France and de Gaulle, their opponents' rather negative and sterile idea of nationhood.
The effect of Dreyfus on ideas of Frenchness and France don't just cover his mistreatment. They must also cover the campaign for him, the Dreyfusards ultimately successful attempt to try and redeem France.
Edit: Also I've personally always agreed with line that 'a country that tears itself apart to defend the honor of a small Jewish captain is somewhere worth going.' That all this happened over an individual case of injustice is admirable in the context of the turn of the century. It's a shame it didn't extend to brutality against entire groups both in France and her colonial Empire. But it's a start.
QuoteAnd that's the problem of using theory to describe realities. Besides be labeled African-American doesn't make one less "ethnically" American. :huh:
I think nationality is mostly theory. That's because, as with French, American isn't an ethnic category.
How generous of the French. They allowed other ethnic groups in their borders to keep their stories and dances!
How exactly do you reach the "you're French and that's that.", level?
Gotcha Shelf. Not settled at time of Dreyfus, totally settled now. Any resident of France who confuses "French" with an ethnic group is part of the racist fringe. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 01:40:09 PM
If everyone is French, what was all the fuss about Dreyfus?
By the same token, you could argue that the assassination of Martin Luther King and the segregation are a proof that "American" nationality is about being ethnically/racially white. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:05:37 PM
Gotcha Shelf. Not settled at time of Dreyfus, totally settled now. Any resident of France who confuses "French" with an ethnic group is part of the racist fringe. :thumbsup:
Indeed. You get this in the UK too. The BNP say they just want to defend 'ethnic whites' because even among fascists it's not cool to be too open in your racism.
QuoteHow generous of the French. They allowed other ethnic groups in their borders to keep their stories and dances!
How exactly do you reach the "you're French and that's that.", level?
What do you mean by this?
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 01:40:09 PM
If everyone is French, what was all the fuss about Dreyfus?
By the same token, you could argue that the assassination of Martin Luther King and the segregation are a proof that "American" nationality is about being ethnically/racially white. :rolleyes:
Really, how?
So Sheilbh, what were you impressions of the occupy demonstrators you meet in London ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:05:37 PM
Gotcha Shelf. Not settled at time of Dreyfus, totally settled now. Any resident of France who confuses "French" with an ethnic group is part of the racist fringe. :thumbsup:
Shame about those Roma that were expelled a few years ago. I guess it only really settled some time this year.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:09:44 PM
By the same token, you could argue that the assassination of Martin Luther King and the segregation are a proof that "American" nationality is about being ethnically/racially white. :rolleyes:
No, that would require an entirely different token. :console:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:05:37 PM
Gotcha Shelf. Not settled at time of Dreyfus, totally settled now. Any resident of France who confuses "French" with an ethnic group is part of the racist fringe. :thumbsup:
There is a strong cultural element to being French (much like to being American - at least last time I checked the President of the French Republic did not go on public record to say that members of certain religions/world-views are not "real Frenchmen"). This culture is obviously rooted in Catholicism (both in terms of a support and opposition), the Enlightenment, and overall "Gaulic" values. Most of the men who built this culture were white Catholics (or lapsed Catholics) who spoke French, much like most of the men who built American culture were white Protestants who spoke English. That does not mean the American nation is "ethnicity-based".
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:13:58 PM
Shame about those Roma that were expelled a few years ago. I guess it only really settled some time this year.
That's like saying the US deporting Mexicans proves that American nationality is tied to race. The Roma were foreign, mostly Romanian and Bulgarian.
I disagreed with what the French were doing. But it had nothing to do with France being an 'ethnic' nation.
QuoteSo Sheilbh, what were you impressions of the occupy demonstrators you meet in London ?
Haven't been since early into the occupation and I've been in Dorset a lot lately. I'll speak to them when I get back though.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:11:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 01:40:09 PM
If everyone is French, what was all the fuss about Dreyfus?
By the same token, you could argue that the assassination of Martin Luther King and the segregation are a proof that "American" nationality is about being ethnically/racially white. :rolleyes:
Really, how?
If real discrimination against members of a given ethnic/racial group is a proof that the country's concept of nationality is ethnicity-based, then surely the sins of the French against the Jews in the 20th century are nothing compared to the American sins against the blacks. And a lot of racism against blacks in the US was (and still is) based in a "they don't observe/respect the same (American) values as we do", much like was the case with the French antisemitism of the Dreyfuss era - but again does it mean that the concept of American nationality is about being white? I disagree.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:16:54 PM
There is a strong cultural element to being French (much like to being American - at least last time I checked the President of the French Republic did not go on public record to say that members of certain religions/world-views are not "real Frenchmen"). This culture is obviously rooted in Catholicism (both in terms of a support and opposition), the Enlightenment, and overall "Gaulic" values. Most of the men who built this culture were white Catholics (or lapsed Catholics) who spoke French, much like most of the men who built American culture were white Protestants who spoke English. That does not mean the American nation is "ethnicity-based".
I think the US is very much ethnicity based.
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:22:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:16:54 PM
There is a strong cultural element to being French (much like to being American - at least last time I checked the President of the French Republic did not go on public record to say that members of certain religions/world-views are not "real Frenchmen"). This culture is obviously rooted in Catholicism (both in terms of a support and opposition), the Enlightenment, and overall "Gaulic" values. Most of the men who built this culture were white Catholics (or lapsed Catholics) who spoke French, much like most of the men who built American culture were white Protestants who spoke English. That does not mean the American nation is "ethnicity-based".
I think the US is very much ethnicity based.
Really? I thought one of the key points always mentioned about American nationality is that unlike a lot of Europe, it is almost completely divorced from ethnicity. :huh:
Perhaps you understand "ethnicity" as something else than everyone else here does.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Unlike the French, you put them into inhuman conditions and forced into slave labour on your own, and not because invading occupants forced you to do so, but in the 19th, not the 20th century, admittedly.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Yeah, to our surprise they totally held their own against the Vietnamese.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:13:58 PM
Shame about those Roma that were expelled a few years ago. I guess it only really settled some time this year.
That's like saying the US deporting Mexicans proves that American nationality is tied to race. The Roma were foreign, mostly Romanian and Bulgarian.
I disagreed with what the French were doing. But it had nothing to do with France being an 'ethnic' nation.
QuoteSo Sheilbh, what were you impressions of the occupy demonstrators you meet in London ?
Haven't been since early into the occupation and I've been in Dorset a lot lately. I'll speak to them when I get back though.
Irrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2011, 02:26:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Yeah, to our surprise they totally held their own against the Vietnamese.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:27:10 PMIrrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
Posts like this really show that it is useless to try to argue with you. I don't know whether it is your insanity or your stupidity but this post strongly suggests at least one if not both.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Unlike the French, you put them into inhuman conditions and forced into slave labour on your own, and not because invading occupants forced you to do so, but in the 19th, not the 20th century, admittedly.
Yeah, the French did that as well.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:29:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:27:10 PMIrrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
Posts like this really show that it is useless to try to argue with you. I don't know whether it is your insanity or your stupidity but this post strongly suggests at least one if not both.
Explain then.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Unlike the French, you put them into inhuman conditions and forced into slave labour on your own, and not because invading occupants forced you to do so, but in the 19th, not the 20th century, admittedly.
Yeah, the French did that as well.
To Jews? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2011, 02:26:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Yeah, to our surprise they totally held their own against the Vietnamese.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
Irrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
I don't understand how this follows from what we've been talking about.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Unlike the French, you put them into inhuman conditions and forced into slave labour on your own, and not because invading occupants forced you to do so, but in the 19th, not the 20th century, admittedly.
Yeah, the French did that as well.
To Jews? :huh:
Blacks. But French Jews were sent east to be slaves as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:29:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:27:10 PMIrrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
Posts like this really show that it is useless to try to argue with you. I don't know whether it is your insanity or your stupidity but this post strongly suggests at least one if not both.
Explain then.
Sorry, I don't feel like explaining basic facts about reality to an obstinate idiot.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:30:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:23:24 PM
Er, we didn't actually destroy our Black population by sending them off to another country to be murdered.
Unlike the French, you put them into inhuman conditions and forced into slave labour on your own, and not because invading occupants forced you to do so, but in the 19th, not the 20th century, admittedly.
Yeah, the French did that as well.
To Jews? :huh:
Blacks. But French Jews were sent east to be slaves as well.
We were drawing comparisons between the French treatment of its Jews and the American treatment of its blacks. How the fuck are French black slaves (who, btw, never amounted to a significant part of the French mainland population, until after decolonization) is relevant to this?
As I said, it is useless to try to argue with you since you do not follow basic logic.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:24:02 PM
Really? I thought one of the key points always mentioned about American nationality is that unlike a lot of Europe, it is almost completely divorced from ethnicity. :huh:
Perhaps you understand "ethnicity" as something else than everyone else here does.
The basic building blocks of White American are Scotch-Irish and, to a lesser extent, English Puritan, English cavalier, and Pennsylvania Dutch.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:34:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
Irrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
I don't understand how this follows from what we've been talking about.
If French is not about ethnicity and rather core values then why would it matter where these came from? If some of them spoke French and had French core values isn't that enough?
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:35:36 PM
Sorry, I don't feel like explaining basic facts about reality to an obstinate idiot.
Oh, we tolerate you all the time. The least you could is reciprocate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:24:02 PM
Really? I thought one of the key points always mentioned about American nationality is that unlike a lot of Europe, it is almost completely divorced from ethnicity. :huh:
Perhaps you understand "ethnicity" as something else than everyone else here does.
The basic building blocks of White American are Scotch-Irish and, to a lesser extent, English Puritan, English cavalier, and Pennsylvania Dutch.
And the basic building blocks of White Frenchman are people of Gaullic, Breton and Languedoc stock. So?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:19:26 PM
QuoteSo Sheilbh, what were you impressions of the occupy demonstrators you meet in London ?
Haven't been since early into the occupation and I've been in Dorset a lot lately. I'll speak to them when I get back though.
Thanks for that, I too have been spending some time in Dorset recently. :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:34:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
Irrelevant, if France isn't about Ethnicity and rather it's about Republicanism et all then it shouldn't matter where they came from.
I don't understand how this follows from what we've been talking about.
If French is not about ethnicity and rather core values then why would it matter where these came from? If some of them spoke French and had French core values isn't that enough?
The thing is, they didn't. They lived in nomadic shanty towns and allegedly engaged in theft. Romas in Europe are like "traveller" people in the US and the UK. While there is clearly a racist element to the Roma hostility, a lot of it is rooted (or at least dressed up) in a cultural clash.
Noone rounded up people of one ethnicity living among others in French suburbia.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:39:10 PM
And the basic building blocks of White Frenchman are people of Gaullic, Breton and Languedoc stock. So?
With an aristocracy derived from Germanic Franks and Burgundians. And Languedoc and Languedoiel (sp) were linguistic, not ethnic divisions IIRC.
So France is an ethnically based state.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
We were drawing comparisons between the French treatment of its Jews and the American treatment of its blacks. How the fuck are French black slaves (who, btw, never amounted to a significant part of the French mainland population, until after decolonization) is relevant to this?
As I said, it is useless to try to argue with you since you do not follow basic logic.
French and American treatment of
minorities. There were still Black Slaves in France though and of course in French colonies. Incidentally the US never enslaved it's Jews or destroyed them.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
If French is not about ethnicity and rather core values then why would it matter where these came from? If some of them spoke French and had French core values isn't that enough?
French nationality is about that. It doesn't mean every Francophone with a passing interest in liberty is French :blink:
Having said that in the more universalist moments of the Revolution that sentiment did exist.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:41:56 PM
The thing is, they didn't. They lived in nomadic shanty towns and allegedly engaged in theft. Romas in Europe are like "traveller" people in the US and the UK. While there is clearly a racist element to the Roma hostility, a lot of it is rooted (or at least dressed up) in a cultural clash.
Noone rounded up people of one ethnicity living among others in French suburbia.
Did they interview each Roma before they tossed them out? Find out if they spoke French?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
If French is not about ethnicity and rather core values then why would it matter where these came from? If some of them spoke French and had French core values isn't that enough?
French nationality is about that. It doesn't mean every Francophone with a passing interest in liberty is French :blink:
Having said that in the more universalist moments of the Revolution that sentiment did exist.
Then, what exactly is
French.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:42:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:39:10 PM
And the basic building blocks of White Frenchman are people of Gaullic, Breton and Languedoc stock. So?
With an aristocracy derived from Germanic Franks and Burgundians. And Languedoc and Languedoiel (sp) were linguistic, not ethnic divisions IIRC.
So France is an ethnically based state.
You are moving the target. We were arguing whether modern French national identity is based on ethnicity. Not whether the state was created by people of a given ethnicity or that most people living in it are of a given ethnicity. These are two different things.
I don't care whether they're ethnically based or not, the French are still cool.*
*Despite their rabid anti-semitism, but that's a Euro thing and you're going to get that anywhere over there, so that's a push. The Poles used to be my #2, but that was before we met Martinus and his cocknibbling faggitry totally undid a rich Polish military history, so they've dropped and been replaced by the Danes at #2 and the Norwegistanians at #3 in my Power Poll.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Then, what exactly is French.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo-librarian.com%2Fimg%2Flife%2Fkisses%2Fkisses02.jpg&hash=e6e1acbbf0f1509739a7a1fefe0fd3c8bbde74aa)
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 02:47:17 PM
We were arguing whether modern French national identity is based on ethnicity.
No, we were arguing whether France is an ethnically based state.
Oh, not the Danes!
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:42:28 PM
French and American treatment of minorities. There were still Black Slaves in France though and of course in French colonies. Incidentally the US never enslaved it's Jews or destroyed them.
I don't think there were ever any black slaves in France that weren't being transported to the colonies. I'm fairly sure that France, like England, had lots of legal get-around for slaves being transported but that the base position was that the 'air was too free' for slaves. The colonies is a totally different story of course.
Of course the revolution initially abolished slavery - the Rights of Man were universal after all - and I think Diderot said 'better the colonies be destroyed than cause so much evil'. But Napoleon relegalised slavery in the colonies.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:42:28 PM
Incidentally the US never enslaved it's Jews or destroyed them.
That's the beauty of America: where anywhere else in the world you'd be stuffed into an E-Z Bake oven, here you can be a movie mogul.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:50:56 PM
Oh, not the Danes!
Hells yeah. Those guys have been Barney Bad Asses the last 20 years, and will pony up in a heartbeat.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Then, what exactly is French.
I don't understand your point at all. Frenchness is being French - it's a nationality.
Okay, I'm not longer sure what you are arguing, then.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 03:02:00 PM
Okay, I'm not longer sure what you are arguing, then.
Same.
For me, simply that French nationality and the national identity of France isn't ethnically based in any significant way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:55:26 PM
Frenchness is being French - it's a nationality.
What about Chineseness?
That's about being extremely cheap and obsessed with money, yet unconcerned with the state of the world, and completely impervious to better ideas even when they're explained clearly and concisely.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:09 PMWhat about Chineseness?
Same. Being Chinese is having Chinese nationality. What makes that up in a more than legal sense is a whole different issue that I have no idea about. It sounds like it'd be interesting though.
Oh, and it's also about ignoring basic air traffic safety.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 03:02:00 PM
Okay, I'm not longer sure what you are arguing, then.
Same.
For me, simply that French nationality and the national identity of France isn't ethnically based in any significant way.
I think the problem is that when you say Ethnic you think of it as being primarily biological. I do not. While morphological features can play a part, they don't have to.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:09 PMWhat about Chineseness?
Same. Being Chinese is having Chinese nationality.
So for the sake of this discussion we're just making up our own theories with no regard to reality?
Seems somewhat tautological.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 03:23:41 PM
I think the problem is that when you say Ethnic you think of it as being primarily biological. I do not. While morphological features can play a part, they don't have to.
Yeah. I'd say ethnicity is like race but lighter.
QuoteSeems somewhat tautological.
Well if you go back to the point of what is French, and why the treatment of non-French people matters to an argument about Frenchness, then you reach that point. French is being French, it's having citizenship of France.
QuoteSo for the sake of this discussion we're just making up our own theories with no regard to reality?
What gives you that impression?
I would argue that ethnicity can be about physical differences but mostly cultural ones. After all, they are both subjective. It would be difficult to spot someone who is "Racially" French in a crowd of "racially" Germans and "Racially" Englishmen.
The Germans are the ones in well-ordered ranks calling you evil for borrowing money that they asked you to take.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:35:11 PM
What gives you that impression?
Disavowal of the role in which ethnicity factors into being Chinese. In a poorly chosen turn of.phrase it is like you are whitewashing the messy ethnic history/strife.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 03:39:51 PM
I would argue that ethnicity can be about physical differences but mostly cultural ones. After all, they are both subjective. It would be difficult to spot someone who is "Racially" French in a crowd of "racially" Germans and "Racially" Englishmen.
That's what I mean by it being lighter. But again I don't think I'd consider any of those examples as ethnic groups.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:47:39 PM
That's what I mean by it being lighter. But again I don't think I'd consider any of those examples as ethnic groups.
:huh: What *would* you consider an ethnic group?
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 03:47:01 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:35:11 PM
What gives you that impression?
Disavowal of the role in which ethnicity factors into being Chinese. In a poorly chosen turn of.phrase it is like you are whitewashing the messy ethnic history/strife.
I think you should read my post again - remembering what me and Raz were talking about.
What you're talking about is part of what makes up Chinese identity which I said I've no knowledge of but would find interesting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 03:51:48 PM
:huh: What *would* you consider an ethnic group?
All sorts Welsh, Breton, Cornish, WASP, Kurds, Turks (as ethnicity not nationality), Berbers, Finns (again as opposed to nationality which may be different and surely includes the Sami).
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:53:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 03:47:01 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:35:11 PM
What gives you that impression?
Disavowal of the role in which ethnicity factors into being Chinese. In a poorly chosen turn of.phrase it is like you are whitewashing the messy ethnic history/strife.
I think you should read my post again - remembering what me and Raz were talking about.
What you're talking about is part of what makes up Chinese identity which I said I've no knowledge of but would find interesting.
What is the point in divorcing the concepts if the state uses its powers to enforce the correct identity? Sounds largely like a dishonest use of semantics to suggest such a state is not ethnically based.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 04:00:14 PM
What is the point in divorcing the concepts if the state uses its powers to enforce the correct identity? Sounds largely like a dishonest use of semantics to suggest such a state is not ethnically based.
How's it dishonest?
I split the two because I think in most of the West they're split - and they certainly are in France which was the example we were talking about. I also think it's helpful to split off nationality as a legal idea from national identity which is more cultural. I'll take your word that China's an ethnic state, that's not a surprise but it also doesn't disagree with what I wrote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:58:31 PM
All sorts Welsh, Breton, Cornish, WASP, Kurds, Turks (as ethnicity not nationality), Berbers, Finns (again as opposed to nationality which may be different and surely includes the Sami).
What makes these ethnic groups and others such as English and German not?
At this point wouldn't it be helpful to have some 'French' people giving their opinions about what is 'french' ?
At the moment I think peoples opinions of what is 'French' are being substantially influenced by how much they like French culture or their own view of France.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:58:31 PM
All sorts Welsh, Breton, Cornish, WASP, Kurds, Turks (as ethnicity not nationality), Berbers, Finns (again as opposed to nationality which may be different and surely includes the Sami).
What makes these ethnic groups and others such as English and German not?
I don't know and even if that's the case or not.
I think a key problem is invariable ethnicity is talked about in relation to another ethnicity or culture, so a discussion about Welshness will so often end up bringing in the English in one guise or another, be it history, language or house prices.
Zoupa can chime in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 04:12:50 PM
What makes these ethnic groups and others such as English and German not?
They're about ethnic origin - with attached language (or not) and cultural traditions (or not). The English and the Germans aren't.
Looking up Garbo's Wiki-link, there's this which seems to explain a lot: 'The term 'ethnic' popularly connotes '[race]' in Britain, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North America, by contrast, '[race]' most commonly means color, and 'ethnics' are the descendents of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. '[Ethnic]' is not a noun in Britain. In effect there are no 'ethnics'; there are only 'ethnic relations'.[18]'
Of the definitions on that page a probably agree with this one most "...a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 04:21:49 PM
They're about ethnic origin - with attached language (or not) and cultural traditions (or not). The English and the Germans aren't.
Looking up Garbo's Wiki-link, there's this which seems to explain a lot: 'The term 'ethnic' popularly connotes '[race]' in Britain, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North America, by contrast, '[race]' most commonly means color, and 'ethnics' are the descendents of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. '[Ethnic]' is not a noun in Britain. In effect there are no 'ethnics'; there are only 'ethnic relations'.[18]'
Of the definitions on that page a probably agree with this one most "...a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".
Most of this makes sense. But I still don't get why you think the Welsh are an ethnic group but the English are not. Biologically self perpetuating, check. Sharing an interest in a specfici geographical area, check. A common language and traditions, including food, check. Common religious faith, sort of.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 28, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
Zoupa can chime in.
He started the whole bit that it wasn't ethnic. I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to ask a member of a group as ethnic based States are viewed negatively and few would happily accept such a label. Might like asking someone from the Balkans to sort things out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 04:29:09 PM
Most of this makes sense. But I still don't get why you think the Welsh are an ethnic group but the English are not. Biologically self perpetuating, check. Sharing an interest in a specfici geographical area, check. A common language and traditions, including food, check. Common religious faith, sort of.
Yeah, I get that and I think it's mostly fair. The English probably could be considered an ethnic group. But describing English as an ethnicity just doesn't seem terribly accurate. If I'm honest I think it's because I don't think there's really any self-identity of an 'English people'. There's a far less of a tight sense of identity than in the examples I gave.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 28, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
Zoupa can chime in.
He started the whole bit that it wasn't ethnic. I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to ask a member of a group as ethnic based States are viewed negatively and few would happily accept such a label. Might like asking someone from the Balkans to sort things out.
Srpska had nothing to do with ethnicity. Look, it has "republic" right in the name!
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 04:58:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 04:29:09 PM
Most of this makes sense. But I still don't get why you think the Welsh are an ethnic group but the English are not. Biologically self perpetuating, check. Sharing an interest in a specfici geographical area, check. A common language and traditions, including food, check. Common religious faith, sort of.
Yeah, I get that and I think it's mostly fair. The English probably could be considered an ethnic group. But describing English as an ethnicity just doesn't seem terribly accurate. If I'm honest I think it's because I don't think there's really any self-identity of an 'English people'. There's a far less of a tight sense of identity than in the examples I gave.
To some extent, this is based on your class and possibly educational background, ask any given fan of an English football club and I'd guess they're much more likely to describe themselves as English, as compared to a guardian reader.
Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2011, 05:06:53 PM
To some extent, this is based on your class and possibly educational background, ask any given fan of an English football club and I'd guess they're much more likely to describe themselves as English, as compared to a guardian reader.
I describe myself as English. But I don't think the sense of identity's that tight. If I'm honest I'd say I'm scouse too and I think there's a stronger sense of identity there too.
After having the chance to muscle various national teams into adopting the same processes of my company, I have a distinct opinion on French views on their own importance in the grand schemes of this universe.
Quote from: Tamas on December 28, 2011, 05:14:24 PM
After having the chance to muscle various national teams into adopting the same processes of my company, I have a distinct opinion on French views on their own importance in the grand schemes of this universe.
They've earned it.
I was roaming round the subject of English ethnicity and it turns out there's a book by a post-colonial theorist that's recently come out called 'The Idea of English Ethnicity'. From Wiki:
QuoteIn his most recent work, The Idea of English Ethnicity (2008)[12] Young returned to the question of race to address an apparent contradiction—the idea of an English ethnicity. Why does ethnicity not seem to be a category applicable to English people? To answer this question, Young reconsiders the way that English identity was classified in historical and racial terms in the nineteenth century. He argues that what most affected this was the relation of England to Ireland after the Act of Union of 1800-1. Initial attempts at excluding the Irish were followed by a more inclusive idea of Englishness which removed the specificities of race and even place. Englishness, Young suggests, was never really about England at all, but was developed as a broader identity, intended to include not only the Irish (and thus deter Irish nationalism) but also the English diaspora around the world—North Americans, South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders, and even, for some writers, Indians and those from the Caribbean. By the end of the nineteenth century, this had become appropriated as an ideology of empire. The delocalisation of the country England from ideas of Englishness (Kipling's "What do they know of England who only England know?") could account for why recent commentators have found Englishness so hard to define—while at the same time providing an explanation of why some of the most English of Englishmen have been Americans. On the other hand, Young argues, its broad principle of inclusiveness also helps to explain why Britain has been able to transform itself into one of the most successful of modern multicultural nations.
Sounds interesting at least.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2011, 05:19:43 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 28, 2011, 05:14:24 PM
After having the chance to muscle various national teams into adopting the same processes of my company, I have a distinct opinion on French views on their own importance in the grand schemes of this universe.
They've earned it.
How so?
Quote from: Zoupa on December 27, 2011, 02:49:24 PM
They weren't real languages, just some dialects and patois. :frog:
Plus we let them keep their folkloric shit. Good for tourism.
Jacobin :D
"Les langues régionales font partie du patrimoine de la France." :P
Art. 75
To an European, the term "ethnicity" has a very strong genetic component to it. It is not just about culture or religion, but also about your parents, grandparents etc. being "genetically" of a given nation (understood as a subset of a "race"). Nazi Germany was a classic example of a state which built national identity around the ethnic concepts - you could not be a German no matter how well assimilated you were if you were e.g. a Jew. That is why, as Sheilbh says, in modern world this approach is becoming more and more meaningless, still there are still some nations that build their identity on blood at least to a degree.
Edit: Having read garçon's link I guess we are once again arguing over cultural/linguistic differences in understanding certain terms. If you understand "ethnicity" as a "culture" then yes, France is an ethnic state. Stupid Americans never understand the same terms the same way we do. :mad:
Hasn't France often had to-dos about it's soccer team being too African?
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
Hasn't France often had to-dos about it's soccer team being too African?
If soccer was a valid representation of national issues in Europe, we would be having something like the forty sixth world war by now.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
Hasn't France often had to-dos about it's soccer team being too African?
If soccer was a valid representation of national issues in Europe, we would be having something like the forty sixth world war by now.
Erm, wasn't it elected politicians who raised the fuss? Not that "fringe" politicians should be used to judge a nation in its entirety. Really just wanted to point out that there is some feeling of ethnic basis out there - rightly or wrongly.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
Hasn't France often had to-dos about it's soccer team being too African?
If soccer was a valid representation of national issues in Europe, we would be having something like the forty sixth world war by now.
Erm, wasn't it elected politicians who raised the fuss? Not that "fringe" politicians should be used to judge a nation in its entirety. Really just wanted to point out that there is some feeling of ethnic basis out there - rightly or wrongly.
I may be wrong but I think the issue there was about awarding "fast track" citizenship to recently transferred soccer players just so they can play in national representation (and had no real or symbolic connection to France, and would leave it as soon as their contract ended) not about them being of an African origin.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
Hasn't France often had to-dos about it's soccer team being too African?
If soccer was a valid representation of national issues in Europe, we would be having something like the forty sixth world war by now.
Erm, wasn't it elected politicians who raised the fuss? Not that "fringe" politicians should be used to judge a nation in its entirety. Really just wanted to point out that there is some feeling of ethnic basis out there - rightly or wrongly.
I may be wrong but I think the issue there was about awarding "fast track" citizenship to recently transferred soccer players just so they can play in national representation (and had no real or symbolic connection to France, and would leave it as soon as their contract ended) not about them being of an African origin.
Again I don't pay much attention but I think that's oversimplifying the issue. The summary I could find on wikipedia suggests otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_national_football_team#Representing_multi-ethnic_France
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:49:46 PM
Erm, wasn't it elected politicians who raised the fuss? Not that "fringe" politicians should be used to judge a nation in its entirety. Really just wanted to point out that there is some feeling of ethnic basis out there - rightly or wrongly.
If you look at your link then you'll see it was something the French Football Federation and Laurent Blanc did. It caused a huge controversy, they've since backed down, were widely condemned by elected politicians and I think for a while it wasn't clear whether Blanc would keep his job.
The 1998 World Cup winning team (and national heroes) were ethnically and racially mixed. I don't think there was any controversy.
I was looking at the Le Pen bit. :P
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 02:08:34 AM
I was looking at the Le Pen bit. :P
Oh okay. That makes much more sense :blush:
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 02:08:34 AM
I was looking at the Le Pen bit. :P
Le Pen is a right wing racist.
Gee Wiz, how did we get talking about a right wing racist in a Ron Paul thread. :goodboy:
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
Hasn't France often had to-dos about it's soccer team being too African?
If soccer was a valid representation of national issues in Europe, we would be having something like the forty sixth world war by now.
Erm, wasn't it elected politicians who raised the fuss? Not that "fringe" politicians should be used to judge a nation in its entirety. Really just wanted to point out that there is some feeling of ethnic basis out there - rightly or wrongly.
I may be wrong but I think the issue there was about awarding "fast track" citizenship to recently transferred soccer players just so they can play in national representation (and had no real or symbolic connection to France, and would leave it as soon as their contract ended) not about them being of an African origin.
A bit more complex than that, they would be trained in France and then play for their parent's country team i.e the French football federation, youth clubs do the nurturing and other countries pick up the rewards.
Sheilbh
1998 is so far away now :D The "friendly" between France Algeria with the Marseillaise booed and "Vive Ben Laden" put an end to the "France black, blanc, beur" propaganda/dream.
For Finkielkraut, it was black, black, black anyways.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:32:02 PM
To an European, the term "ethnicity" has a very strong genetic component to it. It is not just about culture or religion, but also about your parents, grandparents etc. being "genetically" of a given nation (understood as a subset of a "race"). Nazi Germany was a classic example of a state which built national identity around the ethnic concepts - you could not be a German no matter how well assimilated you were if you were e.g. a Jew. That is why, as Sheilbh says, in modern world this approach is becoming more and more meaningless, still there are still some nations that build their identity on blood at least to a degree.
Edit: Having read garçon's link I guess we are once again arguing over cultural/linguistic differences in understanding certain terms. If you understand "ethnicity" as a "culture" then yes, France is an ethnic state. Stupid Americans never understand the same terms the same way we do. :mad:
Fuck, no wonder you people couldn't figure out what to do with Milosevic.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 05:16:23 AM
Gee Wiz, how did we get talking about a right wing racist in a Ron Paul thread. :goodboy:
Everything goes full circle.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 28, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
Zoupa can chime in.
Don't really feel like it. I'm on vacation here in frogland :)
My granpa once told me that la France, c'est les hussards noirs de la République et une certaine façon de couper le saucisson.
That about sums it up for me :)
Quote from: Zoupa on December 30, 2011, 04:39:48 PM
I'm on vacation here in frogland :)
JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE. REPEAT. JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 30, 2011, 07:02:15 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 30, 2011, 04:39:48 PM
I'm on vacation here in frogland :)
JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE. REPEAT. JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE.
:lol:
I guess I'll grab my stuff and head for the train tracks.
Don't let those filthy Germans take advantage of you, either.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 30, 2011, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 30, 2011, 07:02:15 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on December 30, 2011, 04:39:48 PM
I'm on vacation here in frogland :)
JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE. REPEAT. JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE.
:lol:
I guess I'll grab my stuff and head for the train tracks.
:frog:
Santorum surges into second place! :yuk:
http://www.woi-tv.com/story/16424560/santorum-surges-in-des-moines-register-poll
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2012, 03:19:13 AM
Santorum surges into second place! :yuk:
:lol:
4 more years. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2012, 03:19:13 AM
Santorum surges into second place! :yuk:
http://www.woi-tv.com/story/16424560/santorum-surges-in-des-moines-register-poll
God I was joking when I said it was his turn to lead :blink:
It really is true. First they ignore you, then they mock you, then you're ahead of Romney :(
Obviously Iowa just wants attention.
The dead baby thing will bring him down.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
The dead baby thing will bring him down.
This is the Republican primary. The party is full of freaks who think that a fetus is a person.
Quote from: Neil on January 01, 2012, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
The dead baby thing will bring him down.
This is the Republican primary. The party is full of freaks who think that a fetus is a person.
But a dead one? That's creepy even for them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 01, 2012, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
The dead baby thing will bring him down.
This is the Republican primary. The party is full of freaks who think that a fetus is a person.
But a dead one? That's creepy even for them.
They have websites about that sort of thing, don't they?
Probably. They have websites for everything.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
Some quotes I find interesting:
QuoteThe most perplexing character in Congress, ideologically speaking, is Ron Paul. This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn't play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy, he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins. You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I've drilled into Paul's ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.
Quote....This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul's stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It's quite obvious that there isn't one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn't be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there's no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.
What we're seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.
Quotehe is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins.
Bullshit. Jerry Brown's been saying that since '74.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 05:57:54 AM
Quotehe is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins.
Bullshit. Jerry Brown's been saying that since '74.
:wub:
So I'm watching Morning Joe on MSNBC, they're broadcasting from Iowa today, and Michelle Bachmann is on.
Man, she is a total goof. I AM THE ONLY GOP CANDIDATE IN THE RACE WITH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE
Yes, she just said that.
Santorum claims he has a record of having Democrats and independents vote for him, and Romney doesn't. Which state was Romney the governor of again? :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 10:44:30 AM
Santorum claims he has a record of having Democrats and independents vote for him, and Romney doesn't. Which state was Romney the governor of again? :lol:
We've reached the 'flat out lie' section of the election cycle.
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 10:57:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 10:44:30 AM
Santorum claims he has a record of having Democrats and independents vote for him, and Romney doesn't. Which state was Romney the governor of again? :lol:
We've reached the 'flat out lie' section of the election cycle.
Reached?
Quote from: Tamas on January 02, 2012, 05:25:00 AM
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
Some quotes I find interesting:
QuoteThe most perplexing character in Congress, ideologically speaking, is Ron Paul. This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn't play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy, he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins. You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I've drilled into Paul's ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.
Quote....This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul's stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It's quite obvious that there isn't one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn't be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there's no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.
What we're seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.
Liberals can answer his ideas, but it's much easier and fun to find the juicy racist newsletters, or his wild conspiracy theories, or him shilling for the John Birch Society. His biggest thing is fiat money. Destroying the federal reserve to return to money back by gold, or oil, or pork-bellies or what ever is a terrible idea. Akin to Jackson destroying the Bank of the United States. The liberal alliance with mass mobolizing warfare ended in the late 1960's. We don't even
have mass mobilizing warfare anymore. It's not like we were drafting people for the Iraq adventure.
When will we know the results from Iowa?
Quote from: Zanza on January 02, 2012, 12:59:58 PM
When will we know the results from Iowa?
Tomorrow evening, American time.
Seems to me the author of Tamas' articles is trying to draw a connection between Paul's gold standard plank and the OWS abolish the Fed slogan, as well as Paul's neo-isolationism and the peacenik abolish the military position.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
Seems to me the author of Tamas' articles is trying to draw a connection between Paul's gold standard plank and the OWS abolish the Fed slogan, as well as Paul's neo-isolationism and the peacenik abolish the military position.
Well there's obviously a link. I think the article's got a lot of truth to it.
I'd add that in addition to opposing the drug war, war in general, opposition to the bank bailouts and the Fed, that Paul is probably the most civil libertarian candidate around. Far moreso than Obama and I've always said civil libertarians are the one group who should be rightly outraged at Obama's betrayal. Paul stands for quite a lot that the left - as opposed to just centre-left - has long argued for, it's no coincidence that he's often co-sponsored bills with Bernie Sanders - I think it's simply infuriating for them that he's coming at it from a different perspective while they're trying to defend their President for a series of policies they'd decimate Bush for.
Some of the new polls apparently have Santorum in a statistical dead heat for the lead.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
Seems to me the author of Tamas' articles is trying to draw a connection between Paul's gold standard plank and the OWS abolish the Fed slogan, as well as Paul's neo-isolationism and the peacenik abolish the military position.
Well there's obviously a link. I think the article's got a lot of truth to it.
I'd add that in addition to opposing the drug war, war in general, opposition to the bank bailouts and the Fed, that Paul is probably the most civil libertarian candidate around. Far moreso than Obama and I've always said civil libertarians are the one group who should be rightly outraged at Obama's betrayal. Paul stands for quite a lot that the left - as opposed to just centre-left - has long argued for, it's no coincidence that he's often co-sponsored bills with Bernie Sanders - I think it's simply infuriating for them that he's coming at it from a different perspective while they're trying to defend their President for a series of policies they'd decimate Bush for.
What are you talking about?
Rough intrade odds to win the caucuses:
Romney: 49%
Gingrich: 1%
Santorum: 21%
Paul: 30%
No one else really registers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Well there's obviously a link. I think the article's got a lot of truth to it.
The amount of truth in it couldn't fill a thimble.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard because he believes fiat money leads to inflation, bubbles, and crashes. OWS wants to abolish the Fed because Fine Arts and Gender Studies majors don't have a clue about monetary policy and have spun up a narrative that the Fed exists to make the rich richer.
Paul wants to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because he thinks the US is overstetched. Peaceniks want to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because they think the US is the sole source of evil in the world and that all conflicts (those not started by the US) can be resolved by travelling puppet shows and aggressive tree planting.
The connection is that they want the same policies on things like the bank bailouts, the Fed, the war, the war on drugs and civil liberties. I don't see how their different analyses invalidates their identical results.
Also I think you really need to look up some of what Paul's said on foreign policy - because that is wildly incomplete. He's far more into the US causing blowback and being a negative force than you think.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 02:22:30 PM
The connection is that they want the same policies on things like the bank bailouts, the Fed, the war, the war on drugs and civil liberties. I don't see how their different analyses invalidates their identical results.
They most definitely don't want the same policy on the Fed. The last thing in the world the OWS types want is a gold standard that slams the brakes on money supply, jacks up interest rates on student loans and credit cards, transfers wealth from debtors to creditors, and instantly makes the US national debt unsustainable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 02:22:30 PM
Also I think you really need to look up some of what Paul's said on foreign policy - because that is wildly incomplete. He's far more into the US causing blowback and being a negative force than you think.
What would be the fun of that? Yi's comments are obviously not intended to be taken seriously, and more than, say, Jon Stewart's when he also does the hilariously over-the-top characterizations.
Most political humor sucks because of that. It is so often smug and unsubtle that it can appeal only to ideologues who agree with the jokester's views.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 02:59:50 PM
They most definitely don't want the same policy on the Fed. The last thing in the world the OWS types want is a gold standard that slams the brakes on money supply, jacks up interest rates on student loans and credit cards, transfers wealth from debtors to creditors, and instantly makes the US national debt unsustainable.
They both want to abolish the Fed - though I'm uncomfortable talking about OWS types because I don't think they're clear-cut enough for that. My guess would be that a significant proportion of 'OWS types' would support a return to the gold standard, if not most of them.
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
Edit: Actually thinking about it my landlord was spouting on about the gold standard when he camed round to re-do the silicone sealing.
QuoteWhat would be the fun of that? Yi's comments are obviously not intended to be taken seriously, and more than, say, Jon Stewart's when he also does the hilariously over-the-top characterizations.
True, but my objection's with his rather under-stated characterisation of Paul's policies.
My experience of the occupy movement so far is that there's not just a coincidence between the Ron Paul stuff and their agenda, but that actually the one in part informs the other. Ron Paul and other libertarian thinkers, politicans and propagandist are rather popular amongst the two groups I've had dealings with.
Of course I'm talking only of my experiences over here, which seems different to what Yi has characterised as a student led progressive movement in the USA.
From what I've seen here, it broadly breaked down into three groups,each roughly a third in size, one group is the homeless and the very marginalised, as you'd expect from these protests taking place in urban areas, another the people in the more insecure, badly paid jobs who're already really struggling to make ends meet due to commodity price rises and general inflation and the rest are a well intentioned cross section of the middle and above classes who want to see a different, more just or have had enough of the 'current system'.
Quote from: Sheilbh link=topic=6627.msg357863#msg357863
....
They both want to abolish the Fed - though I'm uncomfortable talking about OWS types because I don't think they're clear-cut enough for that. My guess would be that a significant proportion of 'OWS types' would support a return to the gold standard, if not most of them.
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
.....
Yes this is my experience as well, I guess Shelf was a struck as I was at how unexpectedly different it was to what one expected, it certainly isn't the uniformly 'progressive' movement I was expecting.
And the whole issue about how much traction conspiracies theories have on them is rather weird and something I haven't yet got my head around.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 03:18:44 PM
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
The penetration of the idea is irrelevant for our discussion. What does matter is the results the various parties think they will achieve through their protest slogan. Occupy thinks that "abolishing the Fed" will somehow alleviate their own loan burdens and magically reduce income inequality. It will do the exact opposite. So IF Ron Paul were to somehow become president and IF he were to somehow get legislation passed on the Fed, the connection between the progressive left and Ron Paul Libertarians on this particular issue would disappear like water vapor. There's only a connection as long as it remains in the realm of protest slogan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 03:18:44 PM
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
The penetration of the idea is irrelevant for our discussion. What does matter is the results the various parties think they will achieve through their protest slogan. Occupy thinks that "abolishing the Fed" will somehow alleviate their own loan burdens and magically reduce income inequality. It will do the exact opposite. So IF Ron Paul were to somehow become president and IF he were to somehow get legislation passed on the Fed, the connection between the progressive left and Ron Paul Libertarians on this particular issue would disappear like water vapor. There's only a connection as long as it remains in the realm of protest slogan.
I think you analysis fails because one of it's assumptions is false, by and large, in my experience they're not the 'progressive left'.
It's not an assumption mongers, it's a label. Change it to whatever you'd like.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
It's not an assumption mongers, it's a label. Change it to whatever you'd like.
But it's the wrong label, you're assuming they're the two groups are poles apart, I'm saying they're not.
A for instance, a lot of the occupy people are very keen on reciting the stuff about the wrongness of fiat currency and most seem to take it as an article of faith that fractional reserve banking is a great evil. I really can't hear any difference between what they say and the Ron Paul people advocate.
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh link=topic=6627.msg357863#msg357863
....
They both want to abolish the Fed - though I'm uncomfortable talking about OWS types because I don't think they're clear-cut enough for that. My guess would be that a significant proportion of 'OWS types' would support a return to the gold standard, if not most of them.
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
.....
Yes this is my experience as well, I guess Shelf was a struck as I was at how unexpectedly different it was to what one expected, it certainly isn't the uniformly 'progressive' movement I was expecting.
And the whole issue about how much traction conspiracies theories have on them is rather weird and something I haven't yet got my head around.
Define "progressive" here please. While I doubt the Occupy movement (I get annoyed even calling it like that. People with spare time camp and protest - hardly a new phenomenom) is a unified libertarian group, what else than combination of return to classic liberal ideas with modern experiences adopted to it, could be labelled "progressive"? Going more to the left? The far left economy-wise collapsed in 1989, a lot of moderately left economies are in big trouble now because they have been maintained via foreign credit, etc. More right? Which right?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 02, 2012, 03:14:01 PM
Most political humor sucks because of that. It is so often smug and unsubtle that it can appeal only to ideologues who agree with the jokester's views.
I enjoy Stewart and I enjoy Yi. Unsubtle and smug is funny, when it is deliberate overstatement.
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 03:44:27 PM
But it's the wrong label, you're assuming they're the two groups are poles apart, I'm saying they're not.
A for instance, a lot of the occupy people are very keen on reciting the stuff about the wrongness of fiat currency and most seem to take it as an article of faith that fractional reserve banking is a great evil. I really can't hear any difference between what they say and the Ron Paul people advocate.
And I've been saying for the last page or so that the stuff they recite about the wrongness of fiat currency is diametrically opposed to what Paulites recite about the wrongness of fiat currency.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 03:44:27 PM
But it's the wrong label, you're assuming they're the two groups are poles apart, I'm saying they're not.
A for instance, a lot of the occupy people are very keen on reciting the stuff about the wrongness of fiat currency and most seem to take it as an article of faith that fractional reserve banking is a great evil. I really can't hear any difference between what they say and the Ron Paul people advocate.
And I've been saying for the last page or so that the stuff they recite about the wrongness of fiat currency is diametrically opposed to what Paulites recite about the wrongness of fiat currency.
Is it, I've seem them posting Ron Paul vidoes in their facebook groups, I've even seen posts of LaRouche stuff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 03:18:44 PM
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
The penetration of the idea is irrelevant for our discussion. What does matter is the results the various parties think they will achieve through their protest slogan. Occupy thinks that "abolishing the Fed" will somehow alleviate their own loan burdens and magically reduce income inequality. It will do the exact opposite. So IF Ron Paul were to somehow become president and IF he were to somehow get legislation passed on the Fed, the connection between the progressive left and Ron Paul Libertarians on this particular issue would disappear like water vapor. There's only a connection as long as it remains in the realm of protest slogan.
I think where this breaks down is when you start discussing the potential for the enactment of Ron Paul's agenda. It will never happen--it is the protest agenda of a protest candidate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 03:18:44 PM
They both want to abolish the Fed - though I'm uncomfortable talking about OWS types because I don't think they're clear-cut enough for that. My guess would be that a significant proportion of 'OWS types' would support a return to the gold standard, if not most of them.
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
Edit: Actually thinking about it my landlord was spouting on about the gold standard when he camed round to re-do the silicone sealing.
Really? You live in a land even kookier than the one I live in. I've never met anyone who didn't laugh at the idea of the gold standard, and that includes a lot of Republicans and even a lot of people who otherwise support Ron Paul.
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 03:51:14 PM
Is it, I've seem them posting Ron Paul vidoes in their facebook groups, I've even seen posts of LaRouche stuff.
I don't mongers, I haven't spent any time on Facebook reading what Occupyers write about the gold standard. It's possible I suppose that the movement is rife with monetary hawks and I've just missed it. But until I see some banners arguing for an increase in interest rates I'm going to keep on believing that they've tossed out that slogan based on a profound misunderstanding of economics.
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
Yes this is my experience as well, I guess Shelf was a struck as I was at how unexpectedly different it was to what one expected, it certainly isn't the uniformly 'progressive' movement I was expecting.
I don't just mean with the OWS crowd, but more generally. The gold standard has spread like a conspiracy theory. To an extent I think it's because conspiracies are basically attempts at explaining an event that in some way doesn't make sense. Rather than accept the genuine story, which may challenge something you believe or just seem so extraordinarily unfortuitous, it's easier to believe a concocted story in which it makes sense and the event had a reason.
I think many people look at the economic situation and, in this country, inflation and it's difficult to fully explain or comprehend. The gold standard argument is basically a way of explaining it in a pretty easy to understand way - money isn't worth anything - and it can then get linked into conspiracy. My landlord linked it exactly into the US paying for Vietnam.
QuoteThe penetration of the idea is irrelevant for our discussion. What does matter is the results the various parties think they will achieve through their protest slogan. Occupy thinks that "abolishing the Fed" will somehow alleviate their own loan burdens and magically reduce income inequality. It will do the exact opposite. So IF Ron Paul were to somehow become president and IF he were to somehow get legislation passed on the Fed, the connection between the progressive left and Ron Paul Libertarians on this particular issue would disappear like water vapor. There's only a connection as long as it remains in the realm of protest slogan.
That last sentence should be rewritten there's only a connection as long as it remains in the realm of campaigns.
I don't understand your point that what's relevant when discussing a political campaign isn't its penetration, or that people share those views but whether it would still be widespread and whether different groups would still share it if it actually got enacted? That's an odd way of looking at it I think.
For what it's worth I think almost all of Paul's support would evaporate if he became President, ended the Fed and instituted the gold standard. The effect would disappoint and dismay almost everyone. So unless we discount all of his support on this issue I don't think we should discount just one bit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 03:57:20 PMBut until I see some banners arguing for an increase in interest rates I'm going to keep on believing that they've tossed out that slogan based on a profound misunderstanding of economics.
I don't think Ron Paul's supporters are supporting an increase in interest rates, Yi. They're revolutionaries on this. They might as well pick up the pitchforks.
Ron Paul's significantly more than a monetary hawk:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/end-the-fed/
Based on your last post Shelf it seems we've been discussing different things then. I was talking about the possibility of Paulites and various flavors of zany leftist to find common cause. It seems you've been talking about the possibility of Paul's platform finding enough popular support to eventually be adopted as policy.
To your second post:
I don't know anything about Paul supporters. Haven't read their Facebook postings, haven't seen any of their banners. I'm going on what Paul says about the gold standard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Well there's obviously a link. I think the article's got a lot of truth to it.
The amount of truth in it couldn't fill a thimble.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard because he believes fiat money leads to inflation, bubbles, and crashes. OWS wants to abolish the Fed because Fine Arts and Gender Studies majors don't have a clue about monetary policy and have spun up a narrative that the Fed exists to make the rich richer.
Paul wants to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because he thinks the US is overstetched. Peaceniks want to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because they think the US is the sole source of evil in the world and that all conflicts (those not started by the US) can be resolved by travelling puppet shows and aggressive tree planting.
You really don't take the time to find out what the other side thinks, do you?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
Yes this is my experience as well, I guess Shelf was a struck as I was at how unexpectedly different it was to what one expected, it certainly isn't the uniformly 'progressive' movement I was expecting.
I don't just mean with the OWS crowd, but more generally. The gold standard has spread like a conspiracy theory. To an extent I think it's because conspiracies are basically attempts at explaining an event that in some way doesn't make sense. Rather than accept the genuine story, which may challenge something you believe or just seem so extraordinarily unfortuitous, it's easier to believe a concocted story in which it makes sense and the event had a reason.
I think many people look at the economic situation and, in this country, inflation and it's difficult to fully explain or comprehend. The gold standard argument is basically a way of explaining it in a pretty easy to understand way - money isn't worth anything - and it can then get linked into conspiracy. My landlord linked it exactly into the US paying for Vietnam.
Yes, I agree it's surprising. A friend and myself were discussing the very subject over G&T's this afternoon, we couldn't believe we knew several people who take these conspiracies at face value without any critical thinking going into considering them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 03:18:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 02:59:50 PM
They most definitely don't want the same policy on the Fed. The last thing in the world the OWS types want is a gold standard that slams the brakes on money supply, jacks up interest rates on student loans and credit cards, transfers wealth from debtors to creditors, and instantly makes the US national debt unsustainable.
They both want to abolish the Fed - though I'm uncomfortable talking about OWS types because I don't think they're clear-cut enough for that. My guess would be that a significant proportion of 'OWS types' would support a return to the gold standard, if not most of them.
I think you underestimate how much that idea's spread. It's replaced truthers entirely and all other stoned conspiracy theories.
Edit: Actually thinking about it my landlord was spouting on about the gold standard when he camed round to re-do the silicone sealing.
QuoteWhat would be the fun of that? Yi's comments are obviously not intended to be taken seriously, and more than, say, Jon Stewart's when he also does the hilariously over-the-top characterizations.
True, but my objection's with his rather under-stated characterisation of Paul's policies.
Prove they want to abolish the Fed. It's a fairly disparate group, but I doubt a majority wish to abolish the fed. Few people actually understand what the Fed actually does, and that include almost everyone who wants to abolish it.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Well there's obviously a link. I think the article's got a lot of truth to it.
The amount of truth in it couldn't fill a thimble.
Paul wants a return to the gold standard because he believes fiat money leads to inflation, bubbles, and crashes. OWS wants to abolish the Fed because Fine Arts and Gender Studies majors don't have a clue about monetary policy and have spun up a narrative that the Fed exists to make the rich richer.
Paul wants to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because he thinks the US is overstetched. Peaceniks want to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because they think the US is the sole source of evil in the world and that all conflicts (those not started by the US) can be resolved by travelling puppet shows and aggressive tree planting.
You really don't take the time to find out what the other side thinks, do you?
Why would he if he is always right?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
You really don't take the time to find out what the other side thinks, do you?
Incorrect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 04:04:34 PM
Based on your last post Shelf it seems we've been discussing different things then. I was talking about the possibility of Paulites and various flavors of zany leftist to find common cause. It seems you've been talking about the possibility of Paul's platform finding enough popular support to eventually be adopted as policy.
To your second post:
I don't know anything about Paul supporters. Haven't read their Facebook postings, haven't seen any of their banners. I'm going on what Paul says about the gold standard.
Cal's wife posts here sometimes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
You really don't take the time to find out what the other side thinks, do you?
Incorrect.
Then why is it always so far off the mark? Are you deliberately obscuring your knowledge?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:10:41 PM
Cal's wife posts here sometimes.
I don't recall her posting about the gold standard.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:11:23 PM
Then why is it always so far off the mark? Are you deliberately obscuring your knowledge?
ossum
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 04:11:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:10:41 PM
Cal's wife posts here sometimes.
I don't recall her posting about the gold standard.
You must have missed it, I do. We all jumped down her ass and she kinda left. Actually she wasn't just for the gold standard, but something she called "a basket of commodities".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:11:23 PM
Then why is it always so far off the mark? Are you deliberately obscuring your knowledge?
ossum
Okay, please explain the statement about sole source of evil and puppet shows.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:13:41 PM
Okay, please explain the statement about sole source of evil and puppet shows.
There's no point to it. If it were someone else asking the question, someone who has demonstrated that they discuss in good faith, there would be. I would explain my thinking, we would evaluate the evidence and the logic, and move forward. That's not going to happen with you. You're trying to build up to what you think is a gotcha moment, and when it doesn't happen you just move on to your next attempt without in any way conceding a point or altering your own thinking on any issue.
What are you afraid that I will "Gotcha" on? Is there some inconsistency in your argument? Do you believe it can not take scrutiny? Are you just channeling Grumbler?
I think that Yi is trying to say is that even if Ron Paul and the majority of the people involved in the "Occupy" movement both want to abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, both their reasons for wanting to implement those policies and their expectations about the results of implementing them are not the same, perhaps even diametrically opposed.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:25:07 PM
What are you afraid that I will "Gotcha" on? Is there some inconsistency in your argument? Do you believe it can not take scrutiny? Are you just channeling Grumbler?
:lol:
I can't tell if you're satirizing yourself or not.
Quote from: dps on January 02, 2012, 04:25:26 PM
I think that Yi is trying to say is that even if Ron Paul and the majority of the people involved in the "Occupy" movement both want to abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, both their reasons for wanting to implement those policies and their expectations about the results of implementing them are not the same, perhaps even diametrically opposed.
Uhm, the majority of people involved in the Occupy movement want to return to the gold standard? Really? :huh:
Wow, I thought they were starry-eyed idealists but I didn't think they were absolute idiots.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 04:04:34 PM
Based on your last post Shelf it seems we've been discussing different things then. I was talking about the possibility of Paulites and various flavors of zany leftist to find common cause. It seems you've been talking about the possibility of Paul's platform finding enough popular support to eventually be adopted as policy.
I think the two are the same thing. They're never going to join the same third party but various lefties agree and could cooperate with Paul on many issues. I mean his sole partner in his end the Fed crusade was Bernie Sanders, though I think their goals were different. Now they've got new supporters too.
QuoteI don't know anything about Paul supporters. Haven't read their Facebook postings, haven't seen any of their banners. I'm going on what Paul says about the gold standard.
I was linking to his page. This:
QuoteAs President, Ron Paul will work for passage of comprehensive audit legislation, and he will also fight to legalize sound money so Americans will have alternatives to the Fed's inflated paper money.
Ultimately, he will lead the charge to end the dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, enabling America to take a giant step toward economic security, financial responsibility, and lasting prosperity.
Is not a monetary hawk who thinks increasing interest rates is a reasonable step in his campaign to end the Fed. It's like suggesting a Trot wants the overthrow of the capitalist system but would, in the interim, accept works councils.
QuoteThe Civil Libertarian thing and the betrayal of such.
The one group of 2008 Obama supporters who I think can legitimately feel betrayed are civil libertarians.
QuoteProve they want to abolish the Fed. It's a fairly disparate group, but I doubt a majority wish to abolish the fed. Few people actually understand what the Fed actually does, and that include almost everyone who wants to abolish it.
I can't prove it, anymore than anyone can prove what policies they support. It's not that sort of group. I thought I made that clear.
I agree on your last sentence, but I don't think it matters in this context. People don't have to understand the consequences of a policy to support it or not. And it doesn't matter whether they do or not.
Oh here's Cal's wife on the Ron Paul stuff. http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5704.60
I don't know what you could possibly mean, Yi. Going on Sarah Palin on me, afraid I'm going to get you and such. If your arguments are logical and sound and antiwar protesters really do believe that the US is the sole source of evil and that the world's problems can be solved through a combination of puppetry and arboriculture then you certainly have nothing to fear from an uneducated, jobless lunatic like me.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 04:27:08 PM
Quote from: dps on January 02, 2012, 04:25:26 PM
I think that Yi is trying to say is that even if Ron Paul and the majority of the people involved in the "Occupy" movement both want to abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, both their reasons for wanting to implement those policies and their expectations about the results of implementing them are not the same, perhaps even diametrically opposed.
Uhm, the majority of people involved in the Occupy movement want to return to the gold standard? Really? :huh:
Wow, I thought they were starry-eyed idealists but I didn't think they were absolute idiots.
I have no idea whether or not the majority, or even a significant minority, of the people in the Occupy movement want to return to the gold standard, but Sheilbh and Mongers were suggesting the possiblity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 04:31:20 PM
Is not a monetary hawk who thinks increasing interest rates is a reasonable step in his campaign to end the Fed. It's like suggesting a Trot wants the overthrow of the capitalist system but would, in the interim, accept works councils.
I'm not sure what you mean here Shelf.
BTW Raz, you could do a lot worse than adopting Shelf as your model for internet debating.
I'm honestly bemused at the idea that you and Grumbler are afraid I'm somehow going to "get" you. I think Sheilbh is wrong in what he's arguing. I don't think it would benefit me much to argue from positions that are untenable. You might like for me to do that though. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:39:47 PM
I think Sheilbh is wrong in what he's arguing. I don't think it would benefit me much to argue from positions that are untenable. You might like for me to do that though.
I think this right here pretty much proves Yi's point. That isn't what he's saying, but you will blithely pretend it is because it makes his statement look bad. It's dishonest at its very core and if you don't recognize that, well...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
I'm not sure what you mean here Shelf.
On this subject - and others perhaps - he's fundamentally an extremist. Nothing short of 'sound' non-fiat, non-Fed 'paper money will satisfy. I think when you were saying about the OWS not being rife with monetary hawks you implied that Paul's fundamentally just a monetary hawk, while the OWS misunderstand things. I've no argument with you on the latter point but think Paul wants far more than hawkish Fed - even as a stop gap measure.
As I say he reminds me of the interactions I've had with Trotskyists.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 04:39:47 PM
I'm honestly bemused at the idea that you and Grumbler are afraid I'm somehow going to "get" you.
This is the central flaw in your position. I'm not afraid you're going to "get me." The only way I would be afraid you're going to get me is if I conceded to you the moral authority to fairly judge when I've been gotten and when I haven't and if I had a quaking dread of being shown to be wrong. Neither of those conditions is satisfied.
Without this fear of being gotten by you there's no incentive to play game.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 04:42:55 PM
On this subject - and others perhaps - he's fundamentally an extremist. Nothing short of 'sound' non-fiat, non-Fed 'paper money will satisfy. I think when you were saying about the OWS not being rife with monetary hawks you implied that Paul's fundamentally just a monetary hawk, while the OWS misunderstand things. I've no argument with you on the latter point but think Paul wants far more than hawkish Fed - even as a stop gap measure.
As I say he reminds me of the interactions I've had with Trotskyists.
Don't necessarily disagree with you. One thing this campaign cycle has done for me is to dispel any lingering doubts about Paul's intellectual rigor. Would he be happy with a rule-based Fed, one that expands money supply by a constant (Friedman during the inflation debates of the 70's proposed a flat 4% a year)? Probably not. He's fixed on the gold standard as a means in and of itself.
You disparage my moral authority? Why? Actually why did you make that statement?
Fine, Shelf, ask Yi what he meant by sole evil America and puppetry and tree planting statement. He's being a baby and won't respond to me.
I have a list of people I won't respond to. :)
As I haven't been following the news and the subject doesn't appear to have been addressed here, I'll ask- what happened to trigger this apparent Santorum surge and Newt collapse?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2012, 05:34:28 PM
As I haven't been following the news and the subject doesn't appear to have been addressed here, I'll ask- what happened to trigger this apparent Santorum surge and Newt collapse?
January rolled around.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 12:41:37 PM
The liberal alliance with mass mobolizing warfare ended in the late 1960's. We don't even have mass mobilizing warfare anymore. It's not like we were drafting people for the Iraq adventure.
Yeah, the atom bomb pretty much ended industrialized warfare.
I must be going crazy, thought I saw Mongers post something about sanitariums. :hmm:
Santorum's nomination would be probably the best thing possible to happen to Obama. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 06:00:24 PM
Santorum's nomination would be probably the best thing possible to happen to Obama. :lol:
I don't know about that. They could nominate Paul. Or Perry. Or Bachmann. Or Gingrich...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2012, 06:00:03 PM
I must be going crazy, thought I saw Mongers post something about sanitariums. :hmm:
Fuck, I'm going to have to start quoting him again. I saw it, too.
Nah.
Paul is nuts but has a libertarian appeal that could sway some moderates.
Perry is a racist homophobe but has thia folksy charm Bush jr. had.
Bachmann is a fundie but also a woman.
Gingrich may be despicable but is also quite savvy.
Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 06:06:39 PM
Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.
His name doesn't mean anything to the average voter, and there's no need for a word for a mixture of shit and cum.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 06:00:24 PM
Santorum's nomination would be probably the best thing possible to happen to Obama. :lol:
Attention: Nobody gives a fuck about what faggots think about any candidate. You guys are totally irrelevant, and are also utterly corrupt and destructive to society. A double dose of the last two for you in particular, because of your lawyerism.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 06:06:39 PM
Paul is nuts but has a libertarian appeal that could sway some moderates.
Perry is a racist homophobe but has thia folksy charm Bush jr. had.
Bachmann is a fundie but also a woman.
Gingrich may be despicable but is also quite savvy.
Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.
Pop quiz: judging by Martinus' venom, which candidate equated homosexuality with bestiality?
Maybe there's a third party candidate the republicans can get behind ?
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 06:06:39 PM
Nah.
I was joking about the quality of candidate.
QuoteHis name doesn't mean anything to the average voter, and there's no need for a word for a mixture of shit and cum.
That's not what the word means anyway, Marti got that wrong. He does have a massive Google problem which would make it difficult if the average voter's interest gets piqued and he tries to find out a bit more about him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2012, 06:06:39 PM
Paul is nuts but has a libertarian appeal that could sway some moderates.
Perry is a racist homophobe but has thia folksy charm Bush jr. had.
Bachmann is a fundie but also a woman.
Gingrich may be despicable but is also quite savvy.
Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.
Pop quiz: judging by Martinus' venom, which candidate equated homosexuality with bestiality?
The Brain would probably answer Obama.
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 06:12:54 PM
Maybe there's a third party candidate the republicans can get behind ?
Palin :mmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
That's not what the word means anyway, Marti got that wrong. He does have a massive Google problem which would make it difficult if the average voter's interest gets piqued and he tries to find out a bit more about him.
We can thank Dan Savage for that. It's amazing the damage one well-motivated person can do on the internet.
Had an interesting sequence of phone calls today. I guess my change of party registration went through too late to affect campaign call lists.
First the Santorum guy calls me, asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Santorum. I tell him I've never supported Santorum and I don't plan to now.
Then I get a call from a Paul guy. Also asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Paul. I ask him what he means by still. He says I'm on his list as a Paul supporter. Ok, fair enough. I say no and bye.
Then the Paul closer calls me. I like the approach. It's a new guy, college kid like the first. He says he would like to discuss with me my reasons for not supporting Paul. I start off with the gold standard. He tries to blow it off as no chance of passing Congress anyway. Which I don't think is very effective salesmanship. He asks me who I'm supporting, I tell him I'll probably vote for Obama in the general. He says oh, you're like a anti-war guy? I so no, I'm actually kind of a hawk. We talk about deficit reduction. I say I don't know the details of his TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION dollar deficit reduction plan. The closer tries to steer me to a web site. :rolleyes:
I say to him, you support him, you're trying to sell him, you tell me how he's going to balance the budget. He comes right back with no bailouts and no Obamacare. (No hesitation, you can see how this kid got the closer job.) I reply that ending bailouts doesn't decrease our deficit going forward and Obamacare is revenue-neutral (at least on paper :secret:). He tries to launch off on the size of the deficit and the national debt so I wrap it up by telling him I've got food on the stove, I've enjoyed talking with him, I'm not going to caucus for Ron Paul but he should keep on fighting the good fight.
What made you stop supporting Santorum and Paul? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2012, 06:43:27 PM
What made you stop supporting Santorum and Paul? :huh:
Fickle. :weep:
A local election ad has turned a Republican calling himself the "Original tea Party Candidate" a negative thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3A_ZbEKUA
I know Oregon is very liberal but I wonder if this will trend nationwide.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 06:39:01 PM
Had an interesting sequence of phone calls today. I guess my change of party registration went through too late to affect campaign call lists.
First the Santorum guy calls me, asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Santorum. I tell him I've never supported Santorum and I don't plan to now.
Then I get a call from a Paul guy. Also asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Paul. I ask him what he means by still. He says I'm on his list as a Paul supporter. Ok, fair enough. I say no and bye.
Then the Paul closer calls me. I like the approach. It's a new guy, college kid like the first. He says he would like to discuss with me my reasons for not supporting Paul. I start off with the gold standard. He tries to blow it off as no chance of passing Congress anyway. Which I don't think is very effective salesmanship. He asks me who I'm supporting, I tell him I'll probably vote for Obama in the general. He says oh, you're like a anti-war guy? I so no, I'm actually kind of a hawk. We talk about deficit reduction. I say I don't know the details of his TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION dollar deficit reduction plan. The closer tries to steer me to a web site. :rolleyes:
I say to him, you support him, you're trying to sell him, you tell me how he's going to balance the budget. He comes right back with no bailouts and no Obamacare. (No hesitation, you can see how this kid got the closer job.) I reply that ending bailouts doesn't decrease our deficit going forward and Obamacare is revenue-neutral (at least on paper :secret:). He tries to launch off on the size of the deficit and the national debt so I wrap it up by telling him I've got food on the stove, I've enjoyed talking with him, I'm not going to caucus for Ron Paul but he should keep on fighting the good fight.
I'm disappointed you didn't verbally abuse those phone folks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 02, 2012, 07:09:23 PM
I'm disappointed you didn't verbally abuse those phone folks.
What's the point?
You should have invited the ron paul supporter to languish.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
You should have invited the ron paul supporter to languish.
Do they generally like to discuss politics on the Internet?
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
You should have invited the ron paul supporter to languish.
Do they generally like to discuss politics on the Internet?
It can be fun, especially with people who have somewhat esoteric politics. With people like you, who just adopt their party's platform wholesale, it's less interesting.
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 08:29:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
You should have invited the ron paul supporter to languish.
Do they generally like to discuss politics on the Internet?
It can be fun, especially with people who have somewhat esoteric politics. With people like you, who just adopt their party's platform wholesale, it's less interesting.
Less interesting yes, but necessary when you only have 2 choices and one of them is evil incarante.
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 08:29:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
You should have invited the ron paul supporter to languish.
Do they generally like to discuss politics on the Internet?
It can be fun, especially with people who have somewhat esoteric politics. With people like you, who just adopt their party's platform wholesale, it's less interesting.
:yawn: You can't even do Neil well anymore, what makes you think you can do Berkut well?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2012, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 02:22:30 PM
The connection is that they want the same policies on things like the bank bailouts, the Fed, the war, the war on drugs and civil liberties. I don't see how their different analyses invalidates their identical results.
They most definitely don't want the same policy on the Fed. The last thing in the world the OWS types want is a gold standard that slams the brakes on money supply, jacks up interest rates on student loans and credit cards, transfers wealth from debtors to creditors, and instantly makes the US national debt unsustainable.
This, at least, is entirely accurate.
And for my own part, I never said I wanted the Fed abolished. -_-
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 06:17:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
That's not what the word means anyway, Marti got that wrong. He does have a massive Google problem which would make it difficult if the average voter's interest gets piqued and he tries to find out a bit more about him.
We can thank Dan Savage for that. It's amazing the damage one well-motivated person can do on the internet.
Dan Savage must be heaven sent for homophobes. When asked what they don't like about gays they can just point to him and say, "pretty much that".
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 09:27:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 08:29:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 02, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
You should have invited the ron paul supporter to languish.
Do they generally like to discuss politics on the Internet?
It can be fun, especially with people who have somewhat esoteric politics. With people like you, who just adopt their party's platform wholesale, it's less interesting.
:yawn: You can't even do Neil well anymore, what makes you think you can do Berkut well?
Nobody does Neil better than I do, Dorsey.
Still, it is true that with Count gone, you've become the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party on Languish, and that makes you boring. Sure, Ide's politics are far more stupid and less well-thought out than yours, but because he is at least using his brain (albeit very poorly), he's far more interesting and does far better in political discussion than you do. You just ring false.
What about me?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 10:29:54 PM
What about me?
Mentally incompetent, and thus unable to participate properly in the political process.
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 10:27:09 PM
Nobody does Neil better than I do, Dorsey.
Still, it is true that with Count gone, you've become the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party on Languish, and that makes you boring. Sure, Ide's politics are far more stupid and less well-thought out than yours, but because he is at least using his brain (albeit very poorly), he's far more interesting and does far better in political discussion than you do. You just ring false.
I think you're confusing me being anti-Republican with me being a Democratic mouthpiece (or you're just trolling). I can't stand Republican party precisely because I like using my brain, which is the latest concept they declared war on.
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 10:29:54 PM
What about me?
Mentally incompetent, and thus unable to participate properly in the political process.
Well, that's good. I was afraid I was going to get labeled a hack.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 11:12:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 02, 2012, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 10:29:54 PM
What about me?
Mentally incompetent, and thus unable to participate properly in the political process.
Well, that's good. I was afraid I was going to get labeled a hack.
Heavens no.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2012, 10:18:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 06:17:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
That's not what the word means anyway, Marti got that wrong. He does have a massive Google problem which would make it difficult if the average voter's interest gets piqued and he tries to find out a bit more about him.
We can thank Dan Savage for that. It's amazing the damage one well-motivated person can do on the internet.
Dan Savage must be heaven sent for homophobes. When asked what they don't like about gays they can just point to him and say, "pretty much that".
Yeah a person raising a kid is terrible!
So, would a war with Iran help Obama? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 02:12:19 AM
Yeah a person raising a kid is terrible!
I don't know his family life. What I do know is that he a loud mouthed jackass who's silly stunts and insulting demeanor hurts his cause more then it helps.
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 03:56:03 AM
So, would a war with Iran help Obama? :hmm:
Probably not.
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 03:56:03 AM
So, would a war with Iran help Obama? :hmm:
Sure it would help Hussein, but against whom?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 04:10:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 02:12:19 AM
Yeah a person raising a kid is terrible!
I don't know his family life. What I do know is that he a loud mouthed jackass who's silly stunts and insulting demeanor hurts his cause more then it helps.
What othervstunts are you thinking of?
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 07:59:42 AM
What othervstunts are you thinking of?
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 04:10:56 AM
I don't know his family life. What I do know is that he a loud mouthed jackass who's silly stunts and insulting demeanor hurts his cause more then it helps.
I saw this out of context and I thought you were talking about Santorum.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
So homophobes big beef with gays is that they are childish?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
It's funny and fair.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
So homophobes big beef with gays is that they are childish?
Well, that, and the fact that according to a book once written to describe the rituals of a sacrifical cult that has not existed for 2000 years (Leviticus), men having sex with men "as if they were women" was an impurity.
Both are equally good reasons. :)
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
So homophobes big beef with gays is that they are childish?
Well, that, and the fact that according to a book once written to describe the rituals of a sacrifical cult that has not existed for 2000 years (Leviticus), men having sex with men "as if they were women" was an impurity.
Both are equally good reasons. :)
:o Well I'm swayed.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PM
Well, that, and the fact that according to a book once written to describe the rituals of a sacrifical cult that has not existed for 2000 years (Leviticus), men having sex with men "as if they were women" was an impurity.
Both are equally good reasons. :)
Was that part in leviticus about condemning the ritual of temple prostitution or was it just saying that dudes who sleep with dudes cannot peform rituals in the temple? Or did it literally demand the tribes of Israel find every man that ever had sex with another man and put them to do death? I was never very clear. But considering that text was written down thousands of years ago by unknown authors we will probably never know for sure.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PMWell, that, and the fact that according to a book once written to describe the rituals of a sacrifical cult that has not existed for 2000 years (Leviticus), men having sex with men "as if they were women" was an impurity.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert, but don't women have this thing called vaginas for sex, which men don't? So Leviticus only condemns sex with post-op trannies. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PM
Well, that, and the fact that according to a book once written to describe the rituals of a sacrifical cult that has not existed for 2000 years (Leviticus), men having sex with men "as if they were women" was an impurity.
Both are equally good reasons. :)
Was that part in leviticus about condemning the ritual of temple prostitution or was it just saying that dudes who sleep with dudes cannot peform rituals in the temple? Or did it literally demand the tribes of Israel find every man that ever had sex with another man and put them to do death? I was never very clear. But considering that text was written down thousands of years ago by unknown authors we will probably never know for sure.
I really have no idea. I suspect that the reason the authors of Leviticus were against it was because they were priests with a real hard-on for purity. Doing pretty well
anything the "wrong" way got them upset - like wearing fabrics composed of two different materials, or waiving sacrifical animals the wrong way. It all has to do with conserving sacred manna by following the right taboos.
There is little in the way of evidence in the OT or elsewhere that this upset folks outside of priestly circles. For example, Kind David was pretty openly bisexual in the OT with his "your love was better than the love of women" shot aimed at Jonathan, and no-one suggested he be killed for it. On the contrary, he was the biggest hero. (Of course he also committed adultery and murder, but he was condemned for that ...)
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
So homophobes big beef with gays is that they are childish?
Most people have a beef with adults that are childish.
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 02:54:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:47:09 PMWell, that, and the fact that according to a book once written to describe the rituals of a sacrifical cult that has not existed for 2000 years (Leviticus), men having sex with men "as if they were women" was an impurity.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert, but don't women have this thing called vaginas for sex, which men don't? So Leviticus only condemns sex with post-op trannies. :hmm:
Well, I'd love to take that argument to the Levites if they still existed. ;) I assume they'd say something like "let us show you what the punishment for being a smart-ass is ...". :D
Though as pointed out before the fact that there is no actual condemnation of Lesbianism in the OT means those who take it seriously (such as Orthodox Jews) don't consider Lesbianism as "bad" per se.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
Most people have a beef with adults that are childish.
But you said that what homophobes hate about gays is personified by this one dude. Are you suggesting that is what they hate about them?
So how many will drop out after losing badly tonight...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2012, 03:04:19 PM
So how many will drop out after losing badly tonight...
Apparently Perry and Gingrich want to carry on until South Carolina. Though I imagine that depends on whether they're humiliated or not. Huntsman doesn't care about Iowa. Bachmann really needed Iowa, so maybe just her?
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2012, 02:59:28 PM
There is little in the way of evidence in the OT or elsewhere that this upset folks outside of priestly circles. For example, Kind David was pretty openly bisexual in the OT with his "your love was better than the love of women" shot aimed at Jonathan, and no-one suggested he be killed for it. On the contrary, he was the biggest hero. (Of course he also committed adultery and murder, but he was condemned for that ...)
Heh that is a fun one to throw around. Also Ruth seems to love Naomi a bit much for a mother-in-law.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 07:59:42 AM
What othervstunts are you thinking of?
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
So a total of one stunt? That's rather weak - especially when he was attacking an individual that seeks to deny him rights.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 03:04:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
Most people have a beef with adults that are childish.
But you said that what homophobes hate about gays is personified by this one dude. Are you suggesting that is what they hate about them?
Yeah - not really sure how he epitomizes why homophobes hate gays with that one stunt. Not even a particularly egregious one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2012, 03:04:19 PM
So how many will drop out after losing badly tonight...
The rule of thumb is only three tickets out of Iowa.
You know, what Shelf said in jest in reply to my offhand comment about them choosing a third party candidate, doesn't look so unlikely. :ph34r:
Doesn't Iowa just represent 1% of the votes or so? I don't understand why you would drop out with 99% still to go.
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2012, 04:38:49 PM
Doesn't Iowa just represent 1% of the votes or so? I don't understand why you would drop out with 99% still to go.
Read this today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-population-2012-1
Iowa as a percentage of the US population:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic5.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4f036251ecad043f73000047%2Fchart.jpg&hash=421e10b9d61f0a4d89f64ec97efda25f5328682d)
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2012, 04:38:49 PM
Doesn't Iowa just represent 1% of the votes or so? I don't understand why you would drop out with 99% still to go.
Also rans lose their funding.
Because voters in other states want to vote for somebody with a chance of winning the nomination, so people who aren't competitive in early states become even less so as the primaries move along.
Also, as Yi says, donors want to back a winner too.
Also Zanza, it's a state w/ a tiny percentage of the US population, of which maybe 100,000 to 150,000 will show up at the GOP caucus.
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2012, 04:38:49 PM
Doesn't Iowa just represent 1% of the votes or so? I don't understand why you would drop out with 99% still to go.
Tim Pawlenty dropped out because he lost a straw poll in Iowa :lol: :weep:
He'd be surging around about now. He could even be the leader had he stayed in.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2012, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2012, 04:38:49 PM
Doesn't Iowa just represent 1% of the votes or so? I don't understand why you would drop out with 99% still to go.
Tim Pawlenty dropped out because he lost a straw poll in Iowa :lol: :weep:
He'd be surging around about now. He could even be the leader had he stayed in.
He'd be surging at some point, surely. There were enough months for everyone. I used to joke a month ago that it's time for Ron Paul or Santorum to surge, because everyone else had their turn. Now I just shake my head.
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
Yes. We ban political parties and everyone runs as an independent as god intended.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
The argument *for* stringing it out like this is that it allows marginal candidates to get their foot in the door through relatively cheap footwork. If all primaries were on the same day then presumably only the folks with large advertising budgets could compete.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
So homophobes big beef with gays is that they are childish?
Most people have a beef with adults that are childish.
This brought out the childish in me:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3354
:lol:
Combine with this headline:
QuoteSantorum surges from behind in Iowa
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/136347948.html
:D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 05:21:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
The argument *for* stringing it out like this is that it allows marginal candidates to get their foot in the door through relatively cheap footwork. If all primaries were on the same day then presumably only the folks with large advertising budgets could compete.
But why should they be that way in the first place? Why is a large advertising budget even necessary for an internal primary election?
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:29:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 05:21:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
The argument *for* stringing it out like this is that it allows marginal candidates to get their foot in the door through relatively cheap footwork. If all primaries were on the same day then presumably only the folks with large advertising budgets could compete.
But why should they be that way in the first place? Why is a large advertising budget even necessary for an internal primary election?
Why wouldn't it be?
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
I think it's great. The American primary system's a sort of wonderful democratic festival.
I imagine living through those news cycles and ads would give me a very different opinion.
Edit: Having said that I think there must be some way you guys can shorten the election process. I mean this has been going on for 6 months and we're nowhere near done.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2012, 05:33:45 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:29:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 05:21:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
The argument *for* stringing it out like this is that it allows marginal candidates to get their foot in the door through relatively cheap footwork. If all primaries were on the same day then presumably only the folks with large advertising budgets could compete.
But why should they be that way in the first place? Why is a large advertising budget even necessary for an internal primary election?
Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's terribly expensive, bounds candidates to make decissions according to the electoral whims of an unrepresentative territory and doesn't guarantee to produce the best possible candidate?
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:29:10 PM
But why should they be that way in the first place? Why is a large advertising budget even necessary for an internal primary election?
Because the decision is being made by regular joes who know fuck all about the candidates.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2012, 05:33:45 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:29:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 05:21:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
The argument *for* stringing it out like this is that it allows marginal candidates to get their foot in the door through relatively cheap footwork. If all primaries were on the same day then presumably only the folks with large advertising budgets could compete.
But why should they be that way in the first place? Why is a large advertising budget even necessary for an internal primary election?
Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's terribly expensive, bounds candidates to make decissions according to the electoral whims of an unrepresentative territory and doesn't guarantee to produce the best possible candidate?
How do you suggest you influence the voters without advertising?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2012, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:29:10 PM
But why should they be that way in the first place? Why is a large advertising budget even necessary for an internal primary election?
Because the decision is being made by regular joes who know fuck all about the candidates.
Who can vote in these primaries? Everybody? Registered Republicans only?
Varies by state.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
Who can vote in these primaries? Everybody? Registered Republicans only?
Depends on a state. It can be registered Republicans, registered Republicans and independents, or everyone. Being a registered Republican isn't much of a hurdle to overcome either, it's just a matter of ticking a box on the form.
In Iowa you can change your registration at the caucus.
IMO a primary election like this is a purely internal matter of the party in question, and shouldn't be directed at the general public in principle, but only at the party affiliates. I understand the rationale to open up the electorate a bit from that public, but not that much. IIRC the French Socialst party allows affiliates and sympathizers to vote on their primaries, following some criteria and paying a small fee. That could be some kind of compromise solution.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
IMO a primary election like this is a purely internal matter of the party in question, and shouldn't be directed at the general public in principle, but only at the party affiliates. I understand the rationale to open up the electorate a bit from that public, but not that much. IIRC the French Socialst party allows affiliates and sympathizers to vote on their primaries, following some criteria and paying a small fee. That could be some kind of compromise solution.
Our Federal Liberal party is thinking about creating an American style primary system to boost their profile and regain popularity with voters.
I switched in '08 to dem just to vote for Hillary. Then as soon as I could, switched back to independent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 03, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
IMO a primary election like this is a purely internal matter of the party in question, and shouldn't be directed at the general public in principle, but only at the party affiliates. I understand the rationale to open up the electorate a bit from that public, but not that much. IIRC the French Socialst party allows affiliates and sympathizers to vote on their primaries, following some criteria and paying a small fee. That could be some kind of compromise solution.
Our Federal Liberal party is thinking about creating an American style primary system to boost their profile and regain popularity with voters.
That's just sad. :(
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
IMO a primary election like this is a purely internal matter of the party in question, and shouldn't be directed at the general public in principle, but only at the party affiliates. I understand the rationale to open up the electorate a bit from that public, but not that much. IIRC the French Socialst party allows affiliates and sympathizers to vote on their primaries, following some criteria and paying a small fee. That could be some kind of compromise solution.
The American primary system evolved. It used to be a fairly closed process, but starting about a hundred years ago, binding primaries were slowly phased in. That process is still not complete, Democrats still have "super-delegates" that are not bound by voting results, and they have a solid chunk of the votes in the convention. I'm not sure if they'll ever have the balls to overturn the popular vote, but the possibility is there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 03, 2012, 06:19:41 PMOur Federal Liberal party is thinking about creating an American style primary system to boost their profile and regain popularity with voters.
That doesn't strike me as being a good move. How is that supposed to help?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2012, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2012, 04:38:49 PM
Doesn't Iowa just represent 1% of the votes or so? I don't understand why you would drop out with 99% still to go.
Tim Pawlenty dropped out because he lost a straw poll in Iowa :lol: :weep:
He'd be surging around about now. He could even be the leader had he stayed in.
I think I posted at the time something along the lines of the process working by weeding out a candidate so stupid as to think a summer straw poll in Iowa was determinative of anything.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
All this coming and going makes me think about how unreasonably complicated, long and thus expensive US primaries are. Can't there be a simpler and fairer system?
I agree it is too long--rather than the caucuses being tonight they should be in the early summer--but I think the process is less terrible than people think. By having the focus on a couple of small states to kick things off, candidates without money get a shot. This is probably as fair as we can get (though reforms like getting rid of superdelegates and ensuring secret ballots would help too).
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 03, 2012, 06:19:41 PMOur Federal Liberal party is thinking about creating an American style primary system to boost their profile and regain popularity with voters.
That doesn't strike me as being a good move. How is that supposed to help?
Well, it would ensure that someone like Stephane Dion would never get a chance to guy the party again.
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
IMO a primary election like this is a purely internal matter of the party in question, and shouldn't be directed at the general public in principle, but only at the party affiliates. I understand the rationale to open up the electorate a bit from that public, but not that much. IIRC the French Socialst party allows affiliates and sympathizers to vote on their primaries, following some criteria and paying a small fee. That could be some kind of compromise solution.
I'm not sure about the exact number of states that fall into each camp, but certainly in a substantial portion of the states, you have to be registered as a member of a party to vote in that party's primary, but in other states, registered members and registered independents can vote in a primary, and in a few states, anyone can vote in a primary, even if registered as a member of another party. In some states, you don't even register as a member of a party, just as a voter in your precinct--Virginia, for example (or at least that was the case 10 years ago), so you can just show up at the polling place and state which party's primary you want to vote in. In Virginia at least, you can supposedly be required to pledge to support the candidates of the party in whose primary you wish to vote in the following general election, but in practice they don't bother making you pledge because there's no way to enforce it.
I tend to agree that only registered members of a party should be allowed to vote in a party's primary, and I believe that used to be the norm. But there has apparantly been a trend towards allowing independents at least to vote in primaries, probably because there are more and more people who don't want to register as either a Democrat or Republican. (50 or 60 years ago, probably 95% of register voters identifed as and registered as members of 1 of the 2 main parties, now around a third or more of the electorate are independents.)
Results are starting to come in!
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa
Lol
Ron Paul
9 42.9%
—
Rick-perry
4 19.1
—
Mitt-romney
3 14.3
—
Rick-santorum
3 14.3
—
Newt-gingrich
2 9.5
—
Michele-bachmann
0 0.0
Gah, I hope that Perry's standing doesn't hold up.
That's like 1% of the caucus votes I think.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 07:59:42 AM
What othervstunts are you thinking of?
Let's all think up some kind of gross definition for Rick Santorum's name. It's childish.
So a total of one stunt? That's rather weak - especially when he was attacking an individual that seeks to deny him rights.
It's really all I know him for. That and being insulting to people.
I'd put my money on Paul for the Iowa thing. Caucuses involve a lot of compromise and the like and his followers are the most fanatical and least likely to bend. I think most of Romney's guys will stick by him and Santorum's people (and the rest of the pack), will likely peel off to Paul if they don't have a clear majority to start with.
With 13% in,
Paul 24%
Romney 23%
Santorum 23%
Gingrich 13%
Perry 10%
Bachman 6%
The one candidate that is sane and didn't completely prostitute himself: 106 total votes
Hopefully no one in the rest of the world is noticing what is going on right now.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
The one candidate that is sane and didn't completely prostitute himself: 106 total votes
You mean the one that's deliberately betting the farm on New Hampshire and gave up on Iowa a while back?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
Hopefully no one in the rest of the world is noticing what is going on right now.
The Iowa caucus doesn't really mean much, since a) Iowans are provincial idiots, and b) the caucus process is stupid.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:14:30 PM
So a total of one stunt? That's rather weak - especially when he was attacking an individual that seeks to deny him rights.
Especially when both people are utterly evil.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 03, 2012, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
The one candidate that is sane and didn't completely prostitute himself: 106 total votes
You mean the one that's deliberately betting the farm on New Hampshire and gave up on Iowa a while back?
Yeah, that guy who left the state because he wasn't getting a blip in the polls after months of campaigning.
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
Hopefully no one in the rest of the world is noticing what is going on right now.
The Iowa caucus doesn't really mean much, since a) Iowans are provincial idiots, and b) the caucus process is stupid.
C) forigners can mind their own business.
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
Hopefully no one in the rest of the world is noticing what is going on right now.
The Iowa caucus doesn't really mean much, since a) Iowans are provincial idiots, and b) the caucus process is stupid.
I hope the rest of the world realizes this. Imagine if we get Paul and Santorum in first and second place. I'm imagining some euro picking up a paper and seeing those guys as the top two, with a blurb of their policies. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
Hopefully no one in the rest of the world is noticing what is going on right now.
The Iowa caucus doesn't really mean much, since a) Iowans are provincial idiots, and b) the caucus process is stupid.
I hope the rest of the world realizes this. Imagine if we get Paul and Santorum in first and second place. I'm imagining some euro picking up a paper and seeing those guys as the top two, with a blurb of their policies. :lol:
They won't. I guess they'll read "Republican primaries begin: Candidates A & B on top". You'll be lucky if it is explained somehwhere what the hell a caucus is.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
Hopefully no one in the rest of the world is noticing what is going on right now.
The Iowa caucus doesn't really mean much, since a) Iowans are provincial idiots, and b) the caucus process is stupid.
I hope the rest of the world realizes this. Imagine if we get Paul and Santorum in first and second place. I'm imagining some euro picking up a paper and seeing those guys as the top two, with a blurb of their policies. :lol:
Lol. Well, at least Ron Paul will scare the heck out of them all! :ph34r:
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 09:25:21 PM
They won't. I guess they'll read "Republican primaries begin: Candidates A & B on top". You'll be lucky if it is explained somehwhere what the hell a caucus is.
At what point do we need to get Paul and Santorum out of spots one and two before the world realizes we are pyschos? :P
Caucuses suck, because they require a big time commitment and it's for a fixed time. This means people like me are less likely to be able to go, but some crazy old lady with a boner for Santorum? No problem. :)
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:30:06 PM
but some crazy old lady with a boner for Santorum? No problem. :)
Not sure how he feels about having the elderly tranny vote locked up. :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2012, 09:25:21 PM
They won't. I guess they'll read "Republican primaries begin: Candidates A & B on top". You'll be lucky if it is explained somehwhere what the hell a caucus is.
At what point do we need to get Paul and Santorum out of spots one and two before the world realizes we are pyschos? :P
Too late, they've already had their profiles and platforms explained. :p
See, another problem for this primary system, it puts the freakshows in the spotlight.
24% in
23.2% for Santorum
23.2% for Romney
23% for Paul
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2012, 09:32:37 PM
Not sure how he feels about having the elderly tranny vote locked up. :hmm:
:shifty:
Nate Silver
QuoteThe results in Boone County in west-central Iowa, one of the first to report all its votes, help to explain why the contest is so close tonight.
Mitt Romney underperformed his 2008 vote share in the county, taking 17 percent of the vote as opposed to 21 percent. Rick Santorum, although he won the county, did not perform as well as Mike Huckabee did in 2008, taking 30 percent of the vote to Mr. Huckabee's 42.
Imagine that Mr. Romney underachieves his 2008 vote share by 4 points statewide, as he did in Boone County. Mr. Romney would then finish with 21 percent of the vote.
Meanwhile, if Mr. Santorum underperformed Mr. Huckabee's vote share by 12 points statewide, as he did in Boone County, he would finish with 22 percent of the vote.
Everything we are seeing points to an incredibly close finish; I don't think this is a fluke based on the counties that happen to have reported so far.
No Preference gets 14% in Emmet county. :hmm:
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 09:43:13 PM
No Preference gets 14% in Emmet county. :hmm:
Awesome :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
Except that Santorum/Bachman/Perry people are likely to coalesce around Santorum after this.
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
I dunno, people in Iowa don't strike me a particularly crazy. Corny maybe...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2012, 09:51:22 PMQuote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PMSo far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
Except that Santorum/Bachman/Perry people are likely to coalesce around Santorum after this.
Why? It didn't happen for Huckabee (who won Iowa by a much larger margin). Fred Thompson stayed in to fracture the conservative vote and thus gave McCain victory in South Carolina.
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
Romney would put states like Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into play, not to mention many traditional swing states like Florida and Ohio. He is President Obama's most dangerous opponent.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 09:54:19 PM
Romney would put states like Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into play, not to mention many traditional swing states like Florida and Ohio. He is President Obama's most dangerous opponent.
Yeah, I agree. Definitely Obama's least favorite choice for the Republican nod. OTOH Santorum would be a laughable nominee.
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
The problem is that Republican voters are super-conservative everywhere, not just in Iowa. Look at 2010, where Tea Party candidates won a lot of Republican primaries against moderate opponents across the country- e.g. Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Rick Scott in Florida, etc.
I could rationalize Paul being the nominee as us just being an independent minded country. But Santorum, the guy who promised to die on the hill fighting gay marriage :lol: ...it would be amusing to see if an unpopular president Obama could win all 50 states, but that still wouldn't be worth it.
That said, neither of those guys have much shot to be the nominee. I'm just hoping that tonight Paul doesn't finish third. He is just in this for style points, and it would be too bad if a guy like Santorum knocked him into the also ran category.
Quote from: stjaba on January 03, 2012, 10:00:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
The problem is that Republican voters are super-conservative everywhere, not just in Iowa. Look at 2010, where Tea Party candidates won a lot of Republican primaries against moderate opponents across the country- e.g. Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Rick Scott in Florida, etc.
Keep the conservative vote fractured among several competing candidates and have a favorable calendar of upcoming contests, which Romney has.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
46% in
Santorum: 24.1%
Romney: 23.9
Paul: 21.9
Gingrich: 13.2
Perry: 10.1
Bachmann: 5.7
Huntsman: 0.6
Go Santorum!
Looks like Santorum hit the sweet spot for the flavor of the month.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 10:04:19 PM
Quote from: stjaba on January 03, 2012, 10:00:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
The problem is that Republican voters are super-conservative everywhere, not just in Iowa. Look at 2010, where Tea Party candidates won a lot of Republican primaries against moderate opponents across the country- e.g. Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Rick Scott in Florida, etc.
Keep the conservative vote fractured among several competing candidates and have a favorable calendar of upcoming contests, which Romney has.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
Bachmann will drop out soon. If Perry does terrible in South Carolina, he may drop out.
Quote from: stjaba on January 03, 2012, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 10:04:19 PM
Quote from: stjaba on January 03, 2012, 10:00:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
The problem is that Republican voters are super-conservative everywhere, not just in Iowa. Look at 2010, where Tea Party candidates won a lot of Republican primaries against moderate opponents across the country- e.g. Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Rick Scott in Florida, etc.
Keep the conservative vote fractured among several competing candidates and have a favorable calendar of upcoming contests, which Romney has.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
Bachmann will drop out soon. If Perry does terrible in South Carolina, he may drop out.
Which means Romney won.
Bachman and Perry's voters will go the next best non-Romney candidate though.
Interestingly on intrade, the odds for winning Iowa are:
Romney 55%
Paul 12%
Santorum 33%
Maybe the wackjob areas of Iowa have been disproportionately counted.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
Bachman and Perry's voters will go the next best non-Romney candidate though.
It will be too late by then, ala McCain 2008.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2012, 10:21:39 PM
Interestingly on intrade, the odds for winning Iowa are:
Romney 55%
Paul 12%
Santorum 33%
Maybe the wackjob areas of Iowa have been disproportionately counted.
When 31% of the vote was in Nate Silver wrote
QuoteAbout half the counties west of Des Moines have yet to report any results, a potentially good sign for Rick Santorum, since he has led the vote in most of western Iowa so far. Southern Iowa, where Ron Paul is running well, has also been slow to report results.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 09:53:19 PM
Why? It didn't happen for Huckabee (who won Iowa by a much larger margin). Fred Thompson stayed in to fracture the conservative vote and thus gave McCain victory in South Carolina.
Fred Thompson wasn't rabid and neither was the Republican primary electorate(they were in power after all). Republicans weren't feeling confident about their chances and McCain's baggage was different than Romney's baggage. I don't think 2008 is the best model for what's likely to happen in 2012.
The reason I suspect supporters of those three candidates will coalesce is that those three candidates are spouting identical rhetoric. They're not enough to win, but there's still a lot up in the air- how quickly people start dropping out, where do Gingrich supporters go, what happens with the Paul faction, etc. 23% is hardly cause for the Romney camp to break out the champagne.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2012, 10:25:35 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 09:53:19 PM
Why? It didn't happen for Huckabee (who won Iowa by a much larger margin). Fred Thompson stayed in to fracture the conservative vote and thus gave McCain victory in South Carolina.
Fred Thompson wasn't rabid and neither was the Republican primary electorate(they were in power after all). Republicans weren't feeling confident about their chances and McCain's baggage was different than Romney's baggage. I don't think 2008 is the best model for what's likely to happen in 2012.
The reason I suspect supporters of those three candidates will coalesce is that those three candidates are spouting identical rhetoric. They're not enough to win, but there's still a lot up in the air- how quickly people start dropping out, where do Gingrich supporters go, what happens with the Paul faction, etc. 23% is hardly cause for the Romney camp to break out the champagne.
None of those not-Romney candidates have the organization or money to go for the long-haul, let alone match the Obama machine. Heck, only Paul and Romney made it onto the Virginia ballot. Romney will win New Hampshire in a landslide, and the establishment will line up behind him.
88%
Rick Santorum 24.6%
Romney 24.5%
Ron Paul 21.1%
Newt Gingrich13.2%
Rick Perry 10.3%
Michele Bachmann 5.1%
Other 1.1%
Romney and Santorum currently separated by 45 votes.
Ed, go vote!
Oh, wait, Iowa and Ohio aren't the same place. And yet they are.
Romney and Santorum currently separated by 19 votes.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 11:04:40 PM
Romney and Santorum currently separated by 19 votes.
13 votes now
EDIT: Back to 19 now, or maybe my stream is slow. :huh:
Assuming that suburbs and cities are slower to report their results, Romney should win the night.
lol this cat's in uniform at the Ron Paul concession speech
Ron Paul concedes to Romney and Santorum, but states that only himself and Romney can mount a national campaign.
What's the point of a concession speech? Do they stop counting votes for Paul now?
Damn, it would've been so much more amusing if Paul won. :(
Looks like Santorum could pull it out
QuoteMeanwhile, there are two Iowa counties that have yet to report results at all: Madison County, which gave 44 percent of its vote to Mike Huckabee and 16 percent to Mitt Romney in 2008, and Monona county, which went 36-29 for Mr. Romney over Mr. Huckabee.
Thus, Madison County would appear to be favorable to Rick Santorum and Monona County to Mitt Romney. Note, however, that Madison County is larger and cast three times as many Republican ballots in 2008.
Romney and Santorum separated by 54 votes with 95% of precincts reporting.
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
Rick Perry just announced he is going to back to Texas to reassess his campaign. Of all the surprises so far in the Republican campaign, I think the biggest surprise is how big of a letdown Perry's campaign was. He had every advantage in the world- tons of money; big state governor; solid conservative credentials, high initial poll numbers; and yet he somehow managed to finish in 5th place in a fairly mediocre field.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 11:58:48 PM
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
Well, next we go to New Hampshire, where Pat Buchanan won the primary. Then we go to South Carolina. And then Florida.
When do the get to the non goofy states?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 11:58:48 PM
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
:cheers:
Quote from: stjaba on January 04, 2012, 12:05:11 AM
Rick Perry just announced he is going to back to Texas to reassess his campaign. Of all the surprises so far in the Republican campaign, I think the biggest surprise is how big of a letdown Perry's campaign was. He had every advantage in the world- tons of money; big state governor; solid conservative credentials, high initial poll numbers; and yet he somehow managed to finish in 5th place in a fairly mediocre field.
He's dumb as a sack of hammers, and according to Valmy, quite gay. I'm not surprised.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 11:58:48 PM
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
Well, next we go to New Hampshire, where Pat Buchanan won the primary. Then we go to South Carolina. And then Florida.
When do the get to the non goofy states?
You see, that's what the early primaries are for: Iowa votes its moron conscience, then New Hampshire's idiots offset the Iowa results with their own fucked-up results, then South Carolina's idiots offset the New Hampshire results with their fucked-up results.
Then Super Tuesday evens everything out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 11:58:48 PM
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
Well, most of it's about how Ron Paul's a racist.
McCain is going to endorse Romney tomorrow in New Hampshire. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/04/mccain_to_endorse_romney.html
The funny thing is that in 2008 McCain was in some ways the equivalent of Romney this year: the "moderate" candidate. A lot of movement conservatives got behind Romney in 2008 as the anti-McCain candidate. Now Romney is the moderate candidate that all the movement conservatives hate.
Quote from: stjaba on January 04, 2012, 12:05:11 AM
Rick Perry just announced he is going to back to Texas to reassess his campaign. Of all the surprises so far in the Republican campaign, I think the biggest surprise is how big of a letdown Perry's campaign was. He had every advantage in the world- tons of money; big state governor; solid conservative credentials, high initial poll numbers; and yet he somehow managed to finish in 5th place in a fairly mediocre field.
Yeah I am shocked a corrupt and worthless man was...worthless.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 11:58:48 PM
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
Well, next we go to New Hampshire, where Pat Buchanan won the primary. Then we go to South Carolina. And then Florida.
When do the get to the non goofy states?
Florida is the 4th biggest state isn't it? That's as mainstream as you get.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 12:20:15 AM
Quote from: stjaba on January 04, 2012, 12:05:11 AM
Rick Perry just announced he is going to back to Texas to reassess his campaign. Of all the surprises so far in the Republican campaign, I think the biggest surprise is how big of a letdown Perry's campaign was. He had every advantage in the world- tons of money; big state governor; solid conservative credentials, high initial poll numbers; and yet he somehow managed to finish in 5th place in a fairly mediocre field.
Yeah I am shocked a corrupt and worthless man was...worthless.
On paper he was a great candidate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 12:22:23 AM
Florida is the 4th biggest state isn't it? That's as mainstream as you get.
Are California, Texas and New York "mainstream"?
So it looks like a late Santorum surge from behind makes for a messy three-way contest.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 12:25:06 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 12:22:23 AM
Florida is the 4th biggest state isn't it? That's as mainstream as you get.
Are California, Texas and New York "mainstream"?
How can they not be?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 12:28:12 AM
So it looks like a late Santorum surge from behind makes for a messy three-way contest.
You said that just for Malthus's benefit, didn't you?
Also, how are you defining "mainstream" such that Texas and New York both fit but Iowa and New Hampshire don't?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 12:25:06 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 12:22:23 AM
Florida is the 4th biggest state isn't it? That's as mainstream as you get.
Are California, Texas and New York "mainstream"?
Yes. :huh:
Quote from: Mitt RomneyWhat I can promise you is this – when you get out of college, if I'm president you'll have a job. If President Obama is reelected, you will not be able to get a job
Hey, does this mean if Mitt wins, I'll get two jobs? Score.
Seriously, what an asshole.
So, we could get the worst possible outcome. Strange, Iowa usually picks moderates like Bush I and Bob Dole.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2012, 12:44:10 AM
So, we could get the worst possible outcome.
Nah, he's
Quotegoing to back to Texas to reassess his campaign.
:yeah:
Santorum's a great outcome because he can't beat Obama.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 12:47:12 AM
Santorum's a great outcome because he can't beat Obama.
Don't be so sure. If unemployment is, say, 15% in November, anybody the Republicans run might beat Obama. Granted, Santorum is probably the least likely of the major possibilities to beat him.
I think that's a mistake, deeps. Unless unemployment is 15% because of something directly attributable to Obama, and not the obstructionism of the GOP Congress or bad policy of the previous administration (or, more charitably, the Crisis on Infinite Earths that seems to be occurring throughout the world), I don't think Santorum would stand a chance.
Romney... maybe. Maybe. But only because he's a fucking liar, as I noted above.
Edit: Do bear in mind that even I am not Obama's biggest fan these days. I mean, he was never going to be John Edwards. But damn.
I wonder how likely this is to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for Romney. The more people talk about how he can't seal the deal and get above the support he's got now, the more difficult fundraising will be and boosting support.
Man, can things get any worse for Huntsman? He's got -1% of the abortion vote, according to CNN.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 01:31:16 AM
Man, can things get any worse for Huntsman? He's got -1% of the abortion vote, according to CNN.
That's what happens when you're a sane, reasonable man in today's GOP.
:(
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 04, 2012, 01:35:50 AMThat's what happens when you're a sane, reasonable man in today's GOP.
:(
:yes:
it's one of the reasons why the GOP is not a viable option these days, at least nationally
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:37:25 AM
it's one of the reasons why the GOP is not a viable option these days, at least nationally
Okay, DG.
Is true. When have I ever been wrong in my predictions?
Quote from: Habbaku on January 04, 2012, 01:57:52 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:37:25 AM
it's one of the reasons why the GOP is not a viable option these days, at least nationally
Okay, DG.
:rolleyes: I never claimed that GOP is not viable electorally. I just claimed that GOP in its current incarnation courts proudly ignorant idiots. I did not mean to imply that such a strategy is doomed to failure.
Romney wins by about a dozen votes! You heard it here first (and last, if I'm wrong).
Massive math fail by CNN. :lol: Santorum leads by 4 votes with one precinct missing, the remaining precinct goes 51-33 for Romney/Santorum, and the math doesn't add up to 14 vote lead for Romney? I guess after -1% for Huntsman, I should really lower my expectations for the CNN crew, especially given that half of them sound like they're shitfaced.
EDIT: Finally they managed to do the arithmetic right over the commercial break.
Wow, a 14 vote win! What a squeaker!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
Wow, a 14 vote win! What a squeaker!
It's an 8 vote win, actually. Those extra 6 votes that Romney picked up since 2008 made all the difference.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 02:42:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
Wow, a 14 vote win! What a squeaker!
It's an 8 vote win, actually. Those extra 6 votes that Romney picked up since 2008 made all the difference.
I thought he got six less?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 02:43:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 02:42:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
Wow, a 14 vote win! What a squeaker!
It's an 8 vote win, actually. Those extra 6 votes that Romney picked up since 2008 made all the difference.
I thought he got six less?
Damn, you're right. It would've been so much better if he got 6 more rather than 6 less, because it would mean exactly an 8 vote swing, if those extra 6 were distributed evenly among the rest of the candidates.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 10:04:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
What would happen if California, Texas and New York decide to hold their primaries in January next time?
Probably Yi would get fewer phone calls.
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2012, 02:58:02 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 03, 2012, 10:04:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
What would happen if California, Texas and New York decide to hold their primaries in January next time?
Iowa, NH, and SC would hold theirs in December.
Of 2012.
Huh, I'm surprised. I didn't think Santorum would do that well.
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
It's not a great result for Romney. He actually got fewer votes and a smaller percentage of the vote than last time. Despite spending millions, campaigning for four years and competing against people like Santorum and Bachmann. That's a pretty poor result for Romney, even if he won.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 05:05:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 03, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
So far I think this is an extremely good showing for Romney. If he can do well with the crazy Iowa caucus people, he should clean up elsewhere.
It's not a great result for Romney. He actually got fewer votes and a smaller percentage of the vote than last time. Despite spending millions, campaigning for four years and competing against people like Santorum and Bachmann. That's a pretty poor result for Romney, even if he won.
Actually, the expectations were the opposite this election cycle. Romney abandoned the state and everybody expected him to come in fourth or worse until a few weeks ago. In 2007, he had one hundred paid staffers in Iowa. In 2011, he had four.
No non-incumbent Republican has ever won both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 05:36:37 AM
Actually, the expectations were the opposite this election cycle. Romney abandoned the state and everybody expected him to come in fourth or worse until a few weeks ago. In 2007, he had one hundred paid staffers in Iowa. In 2011, he had four.
He didn't abandon the state and no-one expected him to come in fourth or worse. Those things just aren't true, or they're bad spin.
He spend over $5 million on TV ads in the state, second only to Perry, and decided to go for it in Iowa over the Summer (lots of columnists wrote 'should Romney have skipped Iowa?' articles at the time).
These polls show that Iowa was basically like the rest of the GOP. Romney regularly held arond 20-25% and endured numerous waves of conservative opponents. At no point was there reason to expect him to come fourth or below:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 05:48:52 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 05:36:37 AM
Actually, the expectations were the opposite this election cycle. Romney abandoned the state and everybody expected him to come in fourth or worse until a few weeks ago. In 2007, he had one hundred paid staffers in Iowa. In 2011, he had four.
He didn't abandon the state and no-one expected him to come in fourth or worse. Those things just aren't true, or they're bad spin.
He spend over $5 million on TV ads in the state, second only to Perry, and decided to go for it in Iowa over the Summer (lots of columnists wrote 'should Romney have skipped Iowa?' articles at the time).
These polls show that Iowa was basically like the rest of the GOP. Romney regularly held arond 20-25% and endured numerous waves of conservative opponents. At no point was there reason to expect him to come fourth or below:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html)
Yeah, look at those polls. It showed 7 different winners at different times in polling. Romney did not want another upset like when Huckabee destroyed him. Those ad buys came in December with Romney only traveling to the state of few times for the debates until the last few weeks. His effort in Iowa 2008 vs 2012 are not comparable at all.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 05:54:10 AM
Yeah, look at those polls. It showed 7 different winners at different times in polling. Romney did not want another upset like when Huckabee destroyed him. Those ad buys came in December with Romney only traveling to the state of few times for the debates until the last few weeks. His effort in Iowa 2008 vs 2012 are not comparable at all.
Romney visited Iowa as many times as Perry.
You're right that Romney was posing as a conservative in 2008 who would sweep Iowa and then on to New Hampshire, Nevada and Michigan. His campaign was more or less focussed solely on Iowa. That hasn't been the case this year because he's running an incumbent-style national campaign really. So he wasn't banking on Iowa as, say, Santorum or Bachmann were. But he was campaigning there and he was expected to do well, if not win. The idea that he abandoned it and wasn't expected to come in the top three or win is nonsense.
Edit: Of course by the same token, his effort was less so was the calibre of his opponents. In 2008 he was facing Huckabee (:wub:), Thompson, McCain and Giuliani - I think it's fair to say they're all superior to the shower he's currently facing.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 04, 2012, 01:57:52 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:37:25 AM
it's one of the reasons why the GOP is not a viable option these days, at least nationally
Okay, DG.
I didn't know you made more that $250,000 a year, or saved black babies from abortions.
Otherwise, no it's not a viable option.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 04:01:57 AM
Huh, I'm surprised. I didn't think Santorum would do that well.
Once he started sucking the evangelical cock two weeks ago, he would.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 04, 2012, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2012, 11:58:48 PM
Meh, don't need to read 34 pages to know how goofy Iowan Republitards are.
Well, next we go to New Hampshire, where Pat Buchanan won the primary. Then we go to South Carolina. And then Florida.
When do the get to the non goofy states?
It's the Republican Primary. There are no non-goofy states.
McCain to endorse Romney tomorrow. I expect more of the GOP establishment to line up behind the former Massachusetts governor before South Carolina votes in order to sew up the nomination and focus on defeating Obama.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/mccain-to-endorse-romney-tomorrow-109514.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/mccain-to-endorse-romney-tomorrow-109514.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 06:14:49 AM
before South Carolina
South Carolina would wind up killing off Ron Paul anyway.
I suppose that it is better that 2012 Mitt Romney won instead of 2008 Mitt Romney. He did not try to bend over for the evangelicals this time and stuck to his business conservative / electability platform.
It looks like Gingrich is staying in just to try to damage Romney.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 04, 2012, 06:54:28 AM
It looks like Gingrich is staying in just to try to damage Romney.
Yeah, Newt's got a mean streak in him. Big part of the problem with him: he's an asshole.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 06:55:42 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 04, 2012, 06:54:28 AM
It looks like Gingrich is staying in just to try to damage Romney.
Yeah, Newt's got a mean streak in him. Big part of the problem with him: he's an asshole.
And he wants to do book signings, which is why his original campaign team quit en masse over the summer.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 06:46:32 AM
I suppose that it is better that 2012 Mitt Romney won instead of 2008 Mitt Romney. He did not try to bend over for the evangelicals this time and stuck to his business conservative / electability platform.
I'm just disappointed the pro-gay equality 1994 Mitt Romney isn't running. In the nicest possible way, are you working for his campaign and posting on your break or something?
The campaign could, I think, get a bit more interesting now. I've just watched Santorum's speech that, his history and his debate performances make me think he could actually be the most 'credible' of the conservative challengers. He's not as mad as Bachmann, as stupid as Perry or as self-involved as Gingrich. Though he's very Catholic (anti-contraception and all) I think he comes across less kookily extreme than Paul. He also seems, from that speech and the debates, to be a pretty good campaigner. At last we may have a race worth watching.
Also I've heard that Gingrich is planning to go heavily negative on Romney - even if he drops out - like a wounded elephant rampaging off the reservation. In a weird way I wonder if he's more of a threat to Romney as a no-hoper than as the 'challenger' :mellow:
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 04, 2012, 06:54:28 AM
It looks like Gingrich is staying in just to try to damage Romney.
Huckabee did the same in 2008. He got on very well with McCain but wanted to beat Romney so they carried on running until Romney dropped out. But then, last time around, everyone hated Romney. That's been less in evidence this year.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:04:44 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 06:46:32 AM
I suppose that it is better that 2012 Mitt Romney won instead of 2008 Mitt Romney. He did not try to bend over for the evangelicals this time and stuck to his business conservative / electability platform.
I'm just disappointed the pro-gay equality 1994 Mitt Romney isn't running. In the nicest possible way, are you working for his campaign and posting on your break or something?
The campaign could, I think, get a bit more interesting now. I've just watched Santorum's speech that, his history and his debate performances make me think he could actually be the most 'credible' of the conservative challengers. He's not as mad as Bachmann, as stupid as Perry or as self-involved as Gingrich. Though he's very Catholic (anti-contraception and all) I think he comes across less kookily extreme than Paul. He also seems, from that speech and the debates, to be a pretty good campaigner. At last we may have a race worth watching.
Santorum will now get the wilting frontrunner treatment that previous line of no-Romneys received. Good campaigner? He last got voted out office by almost 20%. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:04:44 AM
I'm just disappointed the pro-gay equality 1994 Mitt Romney isn't running.
Oh, he's in there somewhere.
QuoteI've just watched Santorum's speech that, his history and his debate performances make me think he could actually be the most 'credible' of the conservative challengers. He's not as mad as Bachmann, as stupid as Perry or as self-involved as Gingrich. Though he's very Catholic (anti-contraception and all) I think he comes across less kookily extreme than Paul.
QuoteIn an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003,[1] and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts....Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.
No, he's not mad, stupid or or kookily extreme at all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:05:37 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 04, 2012, 06:54:28 AM
It looks like Gingrich is staying in just to try to damage Romney.
Huckabee did the same in 2008. He got on very well with McCain but wanted to beat Romney so they carried on running until Romney dropped out. But then, last time around, everyone hated Romney. That's been less in evidence this year.
Romney dropped out after Super Tuesday on Feb 5, 2008 when it became a mathematical impossibility to win the nomination due to winner-takes-all delegate system (now changed to proportional for pre-April contests). Huckabee stayed on into June to keep visibility and earn millions of dollars in later TV and book income. McCain tolerated Huckabee because victory was already in the bag. Despite the early withdrawal, Romney still ended up finishing second place in delegates awarded.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 07:09:20 AM
Santorum will now get the wilting frontrunner treatment that previous line of no-Romneys received. Good campaigner? He last got voted out office by almost 20%. :D
Except there's no more no-Romneys for the rest of the field to go to. Unless the long prayed-for Huntsman SURGE happens :weep:
That's fair on Santorum - though his record of actually winning elections is probably as good as Romney's. But I thought Santorum's problems were more that he was the most extreme social conservative and the most gung-ho pro-war candidate going in a fundamentally moderate state rather than that he was a disastrous campaigner?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 07:12:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:04:44 AM
I'm just disappointed the pro-gay equality 1994 Mitt Romney isn't running.
Oh, he's in there somewhere.
He will come out of the closet again. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fja.gif&hash=1907f3281b7d2b21625c437eea737ac0667ade88)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 07:12:32 AM
No, he's not mad, stupid or or kookily extreme at all.
I didn't say he's not mad, stupid or kookily extreme. Just not as much as the other Republican candidates :P
QuoteHuckabee stayed on into June to keep visibility and earn millions of dollars in later TV and book income. McCain tolerated Huckabee because victory was already in the bag. Despite the early withdrawal, Romney still ended up finishing second place in delegates awarded.
Huckabee dropped out in March - about a fortnight after Romney - and won more delegates than him. He'd stayed in partly to split Romney's vote, more likely because he didn't like him - he described Romney as 'pretentious and arrogant' when Romney said a vote for Huckabee at that stage was a vote for McCain.
Paul ran until June.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:18:08 AM
That's fair on Santorum - though his record of actually winning elections is probably as good as Romney's.
I dunno, man. Romney never lost a reelection, IIRC. Rick got booted out of the Senate by a substantial fucking margin during the Great GOPtard Purge of 2006.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 07:26:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:18:08 AM
That's fair on Santorum - though his record of actually winning elections is probably as good as Romney's.
I dunno, man. Romney never lost a reelection, IIRC. Rick got booted out of the Senate by a substantial fucking margin during the Great GOPtard Purge of 2006.
I don't think he's ever tried for re-election. He lost in 1994, won in 2002, didn't run in 2006 (I think it would be a good race Patrick v Romney) and then lost in 2008.
Michelle Bachmann, winner of the Ames Straw Poll in August, came in last last night. Money well spent. :D
Supposedly she's ignoring New Hampshire (which is probably a good strategy since I can't imagine her doing well there) and focusing all of her remaining effort on South Carolina. So unless she does really well there, she'll probably drop out after that primary.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 07:12:32 AM
No, he's not mad, stupid or or kookily extreme at all.
Also, he sleeps with dead babies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 04:01:57 AM
Huh, I'm surprised. I didn't think Santorum would do that well.
Once he started sucking the evangelical cock two weeks ago, he would.
What made the evangelical cock of two weeks ago more potent than the evangelical cock of his whole life?
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 07:41:41 AM
Supposedly she's ignoring New Hampshire...
She's going to ignore the rest of the states, too. She's out.
15% up for grabs.
I think Newt has a chance of doing better in New Hampshire than Santorum. If he can he'll stay in, which would be good for Romney going into S. Carolina.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:18:08 AM
That's fair on Santorum - though his record of actually winning elections is probably as good as Romney's. But I thought Santorum's problems were more that he was the most extreme social conservative and the most gung-ho pro-war candidate going in a fundamentally moderate state rather than that he was a disastrous campaigner?
I think that's right. He's obviously got some campaigning skills--before he got run off in PA, he won in 2000 by a decent margin. His main problem is that once you get outside the GOP, there's a huge segment of the general population that would never even consider him.
The rhetoric is getting pretty heavy and bizarre.
Romney "The US is the hope of the world"
Santorum "God gave his people the US so his people could be free"
Do people in the US really believe this or is it just required nonsense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 04, 2012, 12:29:14 PM
The rhetoric is getting pretty heavy and bizarre.
Romney "The US is the hope of the world"
Santorum "God gave his people the US so his people could be free"
Do people in the US really believe this or is it just required nonsense.
The first one is OK, the second one makes me cringe and/or shake my head.
We are the lightbringers. You foreigners are heathen scum.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 04, 2012, 12:29:14 PM
The rhetoric is getting pretty heavy and bizarre.
Romney "The US is the hope of the world"
Santorum "God gave his people the US so his people could be free"
Do people in the US really believe this or is it just required nonsense.
It is required. Opinions vary on how nonsensical people think it is.
There is this thing: American Exceptionalism. It is where we claim we have a special country that is different and better than other ones and we inspire liberty and freedom and good feelings. That our existance makes the world better because of the example it provides.
You generally are not going to be elected President without making sure people think you either believe this is true or you want to make it true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 07:18:08 AM
Unless the long prayed-for Huntsman SURGE happens :weep:
Seems foolish. People actually have to know a candidate exists to vote for them.
Newt seems really mad. He called Romney a "liar" on Tuesday and now refuses to congratulate Romney on Iowa. His speech last night praised Santorum, but complained yet again about Romney's attack ads. I expect to see a vicious televised debate this weekend with Romney truly getting attacked by Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry for real this time; not sure what Paul will do.
Quote from: Kleves on January 04, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 07:41:41 AM
Supposedly she's ignoring New Hampshire...
She's going to ignore the rest of the states, too. She's out.
:weep:
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 02:03:19 PM
Newt seems really mad. He called Romney a "liar" on Tuesday and now refuses to congratulate Romney on Iowa. His speech last night praised Santorum, but complained yet again about Romney's attack ads. I expect to see a vicious televised debate this weekend with Romney truly getting attacked by Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry for real this time; not sure what Paul will do.
Beat him to death with a gold brick.
Give him the Mountain Meadows treatment.
Only one poll out this week, but the expectations game for New Hampshire is the battle for third (and second) place as well as Romney's margin of victory. Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum are fighting for it. Even a third place for Huntsman should kill his campaign (unless really close). A fourth for Gingrich would be another embarrassment, but he will probably fight on till South Carolina in order to continue selling books. Less than second place for Ron Paul would once again chastise his libertarian movement. And a double-digit or better showing for Santorum can continue his momentum. Perry is not competing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 02:03:19 PM
Newt seems really mad.
Understandable. Romney funded a lot of negative ads against him. As I say if Gingrich was in second, I think he'd be running a 'positive' campaign. The less chance Gingrich has of being the anyone-but-Romney the more openly angry Newt's going to get.
Quote from: Ed Anger link=topic=6627.mjavascript:void(0);sg359151#msg359151 date=1325698321
We are the lightbringers. You foreigners are heathen scum.
Lightbringers? So you agree you are the Great Satan?
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 02:14:40 PM
Only one poll out this week, but the expectations game for New Hampshire is the battle for third (and second) place as well as Romney's margin of victory. Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum are fighting for it. Even a third place for Huntsman should kill his campaign (unless really close). A fourth for Gingrich would be another embarrassment, but he will probably fight on till South Carolina in order to continue selling books. Less than second place for Ron Paul would once again chastise his libertarian movement. And a double-digit or better showing for Santorum can continue his momentum. Perry is not competing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html)
watching those jumps first up then down for first bachman then perry then cain then gingerich is like having the fox news daily memos from roger ailes on file.
Murdoch himself looks to be backing Santorum :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
Murdoch himself looks to be backing Santorum :o
No way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
Murdoch himself looks to be backing Santorum :o
Makes sense. A long primary is good for business.
It's a far more fun story. He even has nice-ish things to say about Paul. He really does hate the establishment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
Murdoch himself looks to be backing Santorum :o
No way.
By the sounds of it. He's joined Twitter. His interesting political-ish tweets so far. From the start of the New Year to this evening:
'Good to see santorum surging in Iowa. Regardless of policies, all debates showed principles, consistency and humility like no other.'
'Great to see alexsalmond Briton of the year. Fellow antiestablishmentarian's Econmist piece equal very good and bs!'
'Can't resist this tweet, but all Iowans think about Rick Santorum. Only candidate with genuine big vision for country.'
'Well, well! Values DO count. Santorum result pretty amazing. Policy very similar to Reagan. Now start to sound like him.'
'Paul too extreme, but right to draw attention toFed. Printing zillions can only cause inflation - the coward's way out of this mess.'
'Can understand OCW resentment of extreme inequalities, but how about fund managers only paying cap gains tax without risking a penny?'
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 04:01:57 AM
Huh, I'm surprised. I didn't think Santorum would do that well.
Once he started sucking the evangelical cock two weeks ago, he would.
What made the evangelical cock of two weeks ago more potent than the evangelical cock of his whole life?
The one from two weeks ago was the big Megachurch endorsement in Iowa.
He still Catholic? I remember some of the more religious supporters of John McCain were fairly anti-Catholic last time around. Some guy from Texas.
Perry is staying in the race!? :huh:
He getting kickbacks from Romney or something?
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/04/3352804/texas-gov-rick-perry-decides-to.html
Iowa isn't everything. If he cinches South Carolina, he's back in the race.
What would I need to do to vote in this thing? :)
South Carolina appears to have an open primary. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 09:10:48 PM
South Carolina appears to have an open primary. :hmm:
I'm evidently in their system, but I can't find my voter registration card. I wonder if I need that? I'm almost positive I didn't when I voted in the 2010 elections.
I did find an old condom. Score?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 09:10:48 PM
South Carolina appears to have an open primary. :hmm:
I'm evidently in their system, but I can't find my voter registration card. I wonder if I need that? I'm almost positive I didn't when I voted in the 2010 elections.
I did find an old condom. Score?
That's an interesting chat up line, " I've found an old condom, will you sleep with me, it'll be a pity to waste it"
Condom use would increase my carbon footprint. Thanks but no thanks, Exxongers.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 04, 2012, 07:09:20 AM
Santorum will now get the wilting frontrunner treatment that previous line of no-Romneys received. Good campaigner? He last got voted out office by almost 20%. :D
I am the 20%. :showoff: The 2006 Penna. elections were great fun.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 09:10:48 PM
South Carolina appears to have an open primary. :hmm:
I'm evidently in their system, but I can't find my voter registration card. I wonder if I need that? I'm almost positive I didn't when I voted in the 2010 elections.
I did find an old condom. Score?
You really should throw those away after you use them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 11:35:43 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2012, 09:10:48 PM
South Carolina appears to have an open primary. :hmm:
I'm evidently in their system, but I can't find my voter registration card. I wonder if I need that? I'm almost positive I didn't when I voted in the 2010 elections.
I did find an old condom. Score?
You really should throw those away after you use them.
No way, the Coney Island whitefish population is seriously endangered.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 04, 2012, 09:00:06 PM
Iowa isn't everything. If he cinches South Carolina, he's back in the race.
Or he continues to split the not-Romney vote with Santorum and Gingrich, thus letting Romney skate by with a small plurality. :D
Quote from: Habbaku on January 04, 2012, 09:00:06 PM
Iowa isn't everything. If he cinches South Carolina, he's back in the race.
I think there's at least 5 more debates in which he can humiliate himself before South Carolina :)
Romney will take it on the chin in South Carolina. In fact, most of Teh Souf. They really don't like him down there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 06:19:44 AM
Romney will take it on the chin in South Carolina. In fact, most of Teh Souf. They really don't like him down there.
Well they also have Rick Perry as a fellow Southerner to vote for. Huckabee won a lot of southern states. Luckily for Mitt, a lot of northern states will also be voting when the South votes, so it will balance out.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2012, 07:03:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 06:19:44 AM
Romney will take it on the chin in South Carolina. In fact, most of Teh Souf. They really don't like him down there.
Well they also have Rick Perry as a fellow Southerner to vote for.
Which is why he's not bowing out just yet.
Perry's campaign is dead. If someone besides Romney wins southern states it'll be Gingrich.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 06:19:44 AM
Romney will take it on the chin in South Carolina. In fact, most of Teh Souf. They really don't like him down there.
Yeah but he will smash all before him in the Western States.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2012, 07:10:18 AM
Perry's campaign is dead. If someone besides Romney wins southern states it'll be Gingrich.
Maybe. I bet many of them don't even know he was a congressmen from the South. He certainly doesn't sound like it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 06:21:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
Murdoch himself looks to be backing Santorum :o
No way.
By the sounds of it. He's joined Twitter. His interesting political-ish tweets so far. From the start of the New Year to this evening:
'Good to see santorum surging in Iowa. Regardless of policies, all debates showed principles, consistency and humility like no other.'
'Great to see alexsalmond Briton of the year. Fellow antiestablishmentarian's Econmist piece equal very good and bs!'
'Can't resist this tweet, but all Iowans think about Rick Santorum. Only candidate with genuine big vision for country.'
'Well, well! Values DO count. Santorum result pretty amazing. Policy very similar to Reagan. Now start to sound like him.'
'Paul too extreme, but right to draw attention toFed. Printing zillions can only cause inflation - the coward's way out of this mess.'
'Can understand OCW resentment of extreme inequalities, but how about fund managers only paying cap gains tax without risking a penny?'
I will open a bottle of champagne when that Aussie piece of shit finally croaks.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
I did find an old condom. Score?
It's the universe telling you to vote for Santorum.
...I like Murdoch. In a way...
I have to wait until March 22 to vote! Sheesh, I'd rather get this over with sooner. Gingrich, or yeah Paul, are the two candidates who talk about changing things pretty heavily in Washington. Gingrich talks a good game of it at times I guess, though I tend to favor Romney so far. And Paul can just go away, too radical, but the fact he wants to change things so much is why he gets so many votes, in Iowa anyway and we'll see where else.
The Santorum (anti-Romney) bounce has come. The first national poll of GOP voters this week has him in second place at 21% versus Mitt's 29%. He was only polling in the single digits a few days ago.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 11:16:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2012, 06:19:44 AM
Romney will take it on the chin in South Carolina. In fact, most of Teh Souf. They really don't like him down there.
Yeah but he will smash all before him in the Western States.
Indeed. I imagine Santorum, if he survives, will do best in rust belt states. Be interesting to see if he starts to pick up any 'movement' endorsements.
QuoteThe Santorum (anti-Romney) bounce has come.
To be fair the anti-Romney vote's never gone away. It's the 70% who don't pick him :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 12:06:20 PM
...I like Murdoch. In a way...
I suppose you watched Hack and got the warm and fuzzies about Murdoch from that?
The Kennedy family is trying to get back into politics.
Joe Kennedy III, 31-year-old grandson of Robert F. Kennedy and son of former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, announced Thursday he's exploring a run for Congress.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/05/joe-kennedy-iii-takes-step-toward-house-bid/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/05/joe-kennedy-iii-takes-step-toward-house-bid/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-RG469_0105ke_D_20120105135506.jpg&hash=c63c37510a5bd90e47045fdef8476f2a986d79e4)
Christ I bet you can see his beating heart. He's like a newborn fish :o
When did the Kennedy's get so ugly? (Except for the ginger, he does have the hair.)
The beauty gene got snuffed when John John flew into the ocean. Surely you're not surprised that Bobby produced some fugly descendents.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
Christ I bet you can see his beating heart. He's like a newborn fish :o
When did the Kennedy's get so ugly? (Except for the ginger, he does have the hair.)
He has actually carved off another man's face and is wearing it in that photo. Notice the corpse like pallor and how it doesn't quite fit on rightly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 06:27:47 PM
The beauty gene got snuffed when John John flew into the ocean. Surely you're not surprised that Bobby produced some fugly descendents.
Bobby was better looking than Jack :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 06:30:16 PM
He has actually carved off another man's face and is wearing it in that photo. Notice the corpse like pallor and how it doesn't quite fit on rightly.
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
When did the Kennedy's get so ugly? (Except for the ginger, he does have the hair.)
They are
cursed, aren't they? :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
Bobby was better looking than Jack :mellow:
Post again when you've come down off your crack high please.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2012, 06:27:47 PM
The beauty gene got snuffed when John John flew into the ocean. Surely you're not surprised that Bobby produced some fugly descendents.
Bobby was better looking than Jack :mellow:
They look about the same now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
Bobby was better looking than Jack :mellow:
Not as judged by women.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Not as judged by women.
Maybe. They both did fine. Though I think the 'attractiveness' of the two has been settled by the opinion of straight men far more than women. It's overwhelmingly men who've been writing about and settling the Kennedy's reputation, in all sorts of ways, over the last 50 years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
Christ I bet you can see his beating heart. He's like a newborn fish :o
When did the Kennedy's get so ugly? (Except for the ginger, he does have the hair.)
The Irish genes certainly seem to be coming out, and Irish people are ugly on the outside to match their ugly black hearts. Unless they live under British rule.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2012, 06:43:38 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Not as judged by women.
Maybe. They both did fine. Though I think the 'attractiveness' of the two has been settled by the opinion of straight men far more than women. It's overwhelmingly men who've been writing about and settling the Kennedy's reputation, in all sorts of ways, over the last 50 years.
That's because when Jack and Bobby were alive, the press core was still overwhealmingly male.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
That's because when Jack and Bobby were alive, the press core was still overwhealmingly male.
Absolutely. So were the flamekeepers of the Kennedy myth, chances are I imagine the historians have been overwhelmingly male too and certainly the politicians who have shaped and remodelled the myth have been.
New polls out. Gingrich has joined depressed Huntsman in New Hampshire, stagnating with single digit support. Huntsman will probably once again get drowned out in this weekend's debate and quit after losing badly next Tuesday. Santorum has broken into double digit territory, so he will be the wildcard when it comes to challenging Ron Paul for second place. Romney lead is solid.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html
New poll from South Carolina in almost a month shows Romney and Santorum neck-and-neck for first. Santorum got a huge bump while Gingrich lost half his previous support. Perry is non-existent with 5%. He will have to pull a miracle to keep his campaign alive, but still has a few million dollars in the bank. Romney just started a huge advertising blitz in the state two days ago and has the endorsement of its young female governor.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary
Quote from: Phillip V on January 06, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Perry is non-existent with 5%. He will have to pull a miracle to keep his campaign alive, but still has a few million dollars in the bank.
He better since Texas taxpayers are paying all this money for his security detail: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perry-security-costs-rise/
But it is for our benefit:
Quote"I'm going to be promoting Texas," Perry said in July, as he began to traverse the country. "I'm going to be traveling to places where the Texas story needs to be told, and we will tell it."
Oh yeah Perry you are making us look awesome. A bargain at twice the price.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2012, 11:16:35 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 06, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Perry is non-existent with 5%. He will have to pull a miracle to keep his campaign alive, but still has a few million dollars in the bank.
He better since Texas taxpayers are paying all this money for his security detail: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perry-security-costs-rise/
But it is for our benefit:
Quote"I'm going to be promoting Texas," Perry said in July, as he began to traverse the country. "I'm going to be traveling to places where the Texas story needs to be told, and we will tell it."
Oh yeah Perry you are making us look awesome. A bargain at twice the price.
Oh, it's true: everything I know of Texas, I learned from Perry.
:P
QuoteNew poll from South Carolina in almost a month shows Romney and Santorum neck-and-neck for first.
If Santatorium has any dirty laundry, the Romney machine will fing it and crush him.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
QuoteNew poll from South Carolina in almost a month shows Romney and Santorum neck-and-neck for first.
If Santatorium has any dirty laundry, the Romney machine will fing it and crush him.
Santorum and dirty laundry kind of go together.
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2012, 11:38:58 AM
Oh, it's true: everything I know of Texas, I learned from Perry.
There were three things about Texas that needed to be told.
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
Santorum and dirty laundry kind of go together.
Ewwwww
CNN gives Romney an 18-point lead in South Carolina.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2F39.gif&hash=41060136bc3114d417df7d35575234752e82a1fd)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/06/topsc3.pdf
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
There were three things about Texas that needed to be told.
he he
Paul supporters are going after Huntsman, of all people. They're running a bizarre ad depicting him as the Manchurian Candidate.
QuoteNo translator was needed to interpret Jon Huntsman's response to a pro-Ron Paul web ad that asks whether the former Utah Governor is a "Manchurian Candidate?"
"It's just stupid," Huntsman told a crowd of college students in Concord, New Hampshire Friday morning.
Following Huntsman's remarks Friday, the Paul campaign appeared to agree and called for the ad to be pulled. "The video is disgusting. Whoever put it up should remove it immediately," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said.
The web ad from the group, New Hampshire Liberty 4 Ron Paul, takes aim at Huntsman's ambassadorship in China, his ability to speak Mandarin, and even his adopted daughter, Gracie Mei, who is Chinese. The spot closes with an image of Huntsman dressed as China's communist leader Mao Zedong.
After a speech Friday, Huntsman told reporters Paul should disavow the ad.
"If the group is in any way affiliated with his organization of course he should," Huntsman said.
"It's just political campaign nonsense. It happens from time to time," he added.
In his remarks, Huntsman described how Gracie Mei was found abandoned in a vegetable market in China and taken to an orphanage shortly after she was born 12 years ago.
Gracie Mei, who is now 12, is a fixture on the Huntsman campaign. The GOP contender often endearingly refers to her as his top foreign policy adviser.
"And now she's in my family," Huntsman said.
Polls show Huntsman, Paul, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich are all in a battle for second place in the upcoming New Hampshire primary.
Just read an op-ed by the Hammer of the Krauts stating that Santorum is "the logical conservative alternative to Romney."
:blink:
Also heard E. J. Dionne of the WashPost on NPR sayin Santorum has a very consistent world view that appeals to white working class Republicans.
Maybe Marty's greatest wish/nightmare will come true.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2012, 01:28:03 PM
Just read an op-ed by the Hammer of the Krauts stating that Santorum is "the logical conservative alternative to Romney."
:blink:
Also heard E. J. Dionne of the WashPost on NPR sayin Santorum has a very consistent world view that appeals to white working class Republicans.
Maybe Marty's greatest wish/nightmare will come true.
Santorum has never even worked besides milk his post-Senate connections. He spent most of his adult life in school (till age 28) and then politics (since age 30).
OK Phil, I won't vote for him. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2012, 01:28:03 PM
Just read an op-ed by the Hammer of the Krauts stating that Santorum is "the logical conservative alternative to Romney."
:bleeding:
Quote from: Phillip V on January 06, 2012, 01:37:53 PM
Santorum has never even worked besides milk his post-Senate connections. He spent most of his adult life in school (till age 28) and then politics (since age 30).
His dad was an immigrant, his grandfather a coal miner. He's spoken out about the need for the GOP to appeal to working class families and the like. He's kind of tapping into that same Huckabee vibe of 'I remind people of the guys they worked with, not the guy who fired them.' I think/hope it's the future of the Republican party.
There's a David Brooks column on it too, Yi, and Ross Douthat has this as the positive thing Santorum brought to the race (he's praising all candidates).
Newt's been attacking Romney. I'm enjoying his work. He really bears a grudge :mellow:
QuoteOh yeah Perry you are making us look awesome. A bargain at twice the price.
Well. If it helps I've kind of forgotten about Bush :)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 06, 2012, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2012, 01:28:03 PM
Just read an op-ed by the Hammer of the Krauts stating that Santorum is "the logical conservative alternative to Romney."
:blink:
Also heard E. J. Dionne of the WashPost on NPR sayin Santorum has a very consistent world view that appeals to white working class Republicans.
Maybe Marty's greatest wish/nightmare will come true.
Santorum has never even worked besides milk his post-Senate connections. He spent most of his adult life in school (till age 28) and then politics (since age 30).
Fascinating.
SC.
Every little bit helps.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2012, 02:59:35 PM
Doubt it. Establishmentarians <_<
Are you a sporting man Shelf? :ph34r:
:hmm: Your name is Yi, and you have a problem.
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
:hmm: Your name is Yi, and you have a problem.
As soon as the SC rules on Obamacare, I'll have a problem and 50 bucks.
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
:hmm: Your name is Yi, and you have a problem.
No kidding. He's gonna owe Languish like $10,000 by 2020.
:D
Political betting markets give Romney a 69% chance of winning South Carolina.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=90931 (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=90931)
I wouldn't want to bet on any of these jokers.
Judging from the reactions, Newt's attacks on Romney about Bain are backfiring.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 09, 2012, 02:02:17 PM
Judging from the reactions, Newt's attacks on Romney about Bain are backfiring.
I'm loving them. But it doesn't matter that they're backfiring. Gingrich isn't trying to win, he's trying to destroy Romney. So they may be hurting him, but so long as they're not helping Romney he'll be happy.
Perry's picking them up too - he actually campaigned in SC in a town with business shut down by Bain.
I like Huntsman's attack in the morning debate - it's one of the few moments Huntsman's managed to cut through and his skills as a campaigner (and debater) seem to have improved most over the campaign.
Murdoch still seems to have it in for Romney. He's praised Paul and Santorum, and said if Huntsman or Santorum get over 15% they'll do well enough to carry on. For me I think if Romney's anywhere near the 31.5% he won last election (when he lost New Hampshire) then I think, even if he wins, people should be asking questions about his campaign.
The most important thing: Presidential daughters.
Romney: No daughters. Fail right out of the gate.
Perry:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-bF4ArBJrYlk/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/HHnmOy8AoXQ/photo.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.powerwall.com%2Fimage%2Fpowerwall%2FYjAwMzRmM2MxZjM3YTNlYTA0MzUxOTI0NjBlYWU2NDAvT3JpZ2luYWwvNDQyNzlfT3JpZ2luYWwuanBn%2F44279-original.jpg&hash=629eaf1f4271d2bb95051cd535f8861a44845250)
Sydney Perry
Bachmann:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F01%2F03%2Farticle-2081813-0F548CA800000578-162_634x501.jpg&hash=56b565f190593304fae7d26774fb9d8b5844dd6c)
Elisa and Caroline Bachmann.
Gingrich:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newt.org%2Fsites%2Fnewt.org%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fjackieandkathy.jpg&hash=edd0a3fc1814b8e414d177bfa3781ebd130d0842)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newt.org%2Fsites%2Fnewt.org%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fkathynewtandjackie.jpg&hash=2b3fd5a2605b354d73dd3239d66538aa4a6ec975)
Kathy and Jackie (married so not Gingrich)
Santorum:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-e6rdqhtvRTM%2FTj3d4DzWhVI%2FAAAAAAAAIoQ%2FNC5c3g6jlvI%2Fs1600%2F053.JPG&hash=9c7ef4b95f58430554f81eec49b7fb2095175570)
Sarah left Elizabeth right
Paul:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4010%2F4622025237_1e8b2e278e_m.jpg&hash=e954227b22babba87ba7117fcd012bacdcc52ade)
Lori Paul Pyeatt
He's like a million years old, so here's his granddaughters just to be fair.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages01%2F47%2Fd46a96e3f149ed2172ed4959a4c52e03%2Fl.jpg&hash=9b288ec78eb877c7945173b139f673b7f43aa205)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages01%2F2%2F965615a4b80bad17f59bfb96c0728b62%2Fl.jpg&hash=223e6e0fa4e52122950b9eef327cc85bac4bd079)
Huntsman:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2011%2F12%2F111215_huntsman_girls_gq_328.jpg&hash=defe20dcb95b8e93071f6f3f92dc6f0eb307ce7a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.jezebel.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F39%2F2011%2F11%2Fb4b8d09b6da66dab7775795e544d2ca1.jpg&hash=f695a259ed53cea5b412dc7164e0927d0628c93b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.3360866.1322788469%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpeg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_576%2Fimage.jpeg&hash=1766d41306b84c401172cba46bc6b2f98dc3aa98)
Mary Anne, Liddy and Abby Huntsman
(wtf was Colbert doing??)
Cain:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F11%2F15%2Fus%2F15caucusclick-1%2F15caucusclick-1-blog480.jpg&hash=99fe6827b84f7e008449ddf4616b1a850a6af2d5)
The best I could find with Melanie Cain in it. I know it sucks, so here's a pizza.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carltonjordan.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2F2011%2F12%2Fherman-cain-large-pizza.jpg&hash=a5462d2ac4269356ded4b93975861142be4ec028)
We already knew that Huntsman won on this point, dude. But back in 2000 it was a really tough choice between Bush and Gore. :hmm:
Oh, I don't know. That's a decent looking pizza.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 09, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
Oh, I don't know. That's a decent looking pizza.
Heat it up and it feels the same. :)
I saw Huntsman's daughters on CNN with Wolf Blitzer tonight. Seem to be upbeat, fun and intelligent young women.
So now I hope Huntsman gets in as Pres. ;)
You have to go back all the way to Ike to find a president who didn't have a daughter. Romney is doomed.
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2012, 10:11:18 PM
You have to go back all the way to Ike to find a president who didn't have a daughter. Romney is doomed.
You have to go all the way back to forever to find a president who is black. Obama is doomed. :sleep:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 09, 2012, 08:08:32 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages01%2F2%2F965615a4b80bad17f59bfb96c0728b62%2Fl.jpg&hash=223e6e0fa4e52122950b9eef327cc85bac4bd079)
"WHERE IS... PANCAKE... HOUSE."
Huntsman's daughters were on campus a few weeks ago. They made some video poking fun at that creepy sex harassment dude that was pretty funny.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 09, 2012, 08:08:32 PM
Sydney Perry
Wait, that's the same girl?
Why don't you tell me again about "how hot" the Photoshopped aspiring model was in that yearbook photo, you cackling cacophony of ignominious ineptitude!
That first Perry Girl pic looks like Minka Kelly the second looks like Cathy Bates. Says alot about make up and photographers.
But, seriously, there is something wrong with perving presidential daughters. They didn't ask to be in the spotlight and as long as they don't leverage their "fame" ala Meghan McCain. Presidential daughters (and sons) are to be seen and not heard and if they are adults they can be expected to mouth campaign slogans from time to time but I think they still deserve their privacy. Their fathers are president, they are not. They are not public figures.
Oh, shut it. :lol:
This is directed at Ide, not Viking.
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:00:00 AM
That first Perry Girl pic looks like Minka Kelly the second looks like Cathy Bates. Says alot about make up and photographers.
Man, I think that's a little messed up, and I was considering a joke about the Santorum kids asking which one was the miscarriage.
I think she's prettier in the more candid picture. The first one is fake looking as shit.
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:00:00 AM
They didn't ask to be in the spotlight and as long as they don't leverage their "fame" ala Meghan McCain.
Is there an end to this sentence somewhere?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
Oh, shut it. :lol:
This is directed at Ide, not Viking.
Oh I'd say the same statement to Viking on the whole "they didn't ask to be in the spotlight so there is something wrong about pervving on them".
Quote from: Habbaku on January 10, 2012, 12:05:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:00:00 AM
They didn't ask to be in the spotlight and as long as they don't leverage their "fame" ala Meghan McCain.
Is there an end to this sentence somewhere?
I agree, grammar fail on my part.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 12:07:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
Oh, shut it. :lol:
This is directed at Ide, not Viking.
Oh I'd say the same statement to Viking on the whole "they didn't ask to be in the spotlight so there is something wrong about pervving on them".
Maybe it's my Eurofaggity anti-puritanism telling me that normal people should only be perved normally (ie not in the press), or it's my Atlantomacho anti-royalism telling me that who your dad is makes no difference to wether and how I'm going to perve a chick, or it's my own homegrown anti-kiddypervingism that remembers that Sasha and Malia Obama are 10 and 13 years old iirc.
If you want to be a public figure you don't get to claim protection of privacy, but if you are just related to a public figure you should be left alone.
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:15:42 AM
Maybe it's my Eurofaggity anti-puritanism telling me that normal people should only be perved normally (ie not in the press), or it's my Atlantomacho anti-royalism telling me that who your dad is makes no difference to wether and how I'm going to perve a chick, or it's my own homegrown anti-kiddypervingism that remembers that Sasha and Malia Obama are 10 and 13 years old iirc.
If you want to be a public figure you don't get to claim protection of privacy, but if you are just related to a public figure you should be left alone.
When did Languish become the press? :huh:
When did anyone perv on the Obamas? I mean, I'd fuck Michelle.
I was perving on Sydney Perry. She's 24.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 12:25:16 AM
When did anyone perv on the Obamas? I mean, I'd fuck Michelle.
:x
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:15:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 12:07:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 10, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
Oh, shut it. :lol:
This is directed at Ide, not Viking.
Oh I'd say the same statement to Viking on the whole "they didn't ask to be in the spotlight so there is something wrong about pervving on them".
Maybe it's my Eurofaggity anti-puritanism telling me that normal people should only be perved normally (ie not in the press), or it's my Atlantomacho anti-royalism telling me that who your dad is makes no difference to wether and how I'm going to perve a chick, or it's my own homegrown anti-kiddypervingism that remembers that Sasha and Malia Obama are 10 and 13 years old iirc.
If you want to be a public figure you don't get to claim protection of privacy, but if you are just related to a public figure you should be left alone.
The problem I have with what you're saying is that it almost goes in the opposite direction--if we accept your POV, we might end up coming close to saying that Presidential daughters have a station in life that puts them above being checked out by normal guys like us (OK, granted there's not much normal about a lot of us ;) ).
I do agree that if a Presidential daughter is underage, there's a problem with adult guys checking her out, but that's still not any different from a girl that age who's not a Presidential daughter. And I don't see any problem with guys who are in junior high school checking out Obama's daughter.
Dixville Notch results are in: Romney and Huntsman tied. :cool:
I LIKE TO FIRE PIPPLE
Quote from: Caliga on January 10, 2012, 06:25:37 AM
Dixville Notch results are in: Romney and Huntsman tied. :cool:
HUNTSMENTUM! :w00t:
Quote from: Viking on January 10, 2012, 12:00:00 AM
But, seriously, there is something wrong with perving presidential daughters. .... Presidential daughters (and sons) are to be seen obscene and not heard absurd ...
Fixed, the Languish Way.
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2012, 06:16:28 AM
The problem I have with what you're saying is that it almost goes in the opposite direction--if we accept your POV, we might end up coming close to saying that Presidential daughters have a station in life that puts them above being checked out by normal guys like us (OK, granted there's not much normal about a lot of us ;) ).
The problem with this approach is that it assumes that all daughters everywhere have an equal chance of ending up with their pictures so publicly available, and so ignoring presidential daughters would make them different from all other daughters. That is clearly not the case.
I see no harm in the occasional comparison of wives/daughters/pets/sons/cars/whatever of the candidates, like we see here. The near-stalking of such family members that we hear about occasionally is pretty creepy, though. I agree that the press should be hands off on the non-adult kids of public figures, and by and large it is.
It seems we have a competitive race for second place between Paul and Huntsman while Santorum and Gingrich fight it out for fourth place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html
I liked when I came in this morning there was a bit about New Hampshire and how the first votes were in - 2 for Romney and 2 for Huntsman. :D
'Mitt Romney is now the only candidate that a majority of conservative and moderate/liberal Republicans nationwide see as an acceptable GOP nominee for president. Conservative Republicans are more likely to say this about Romney than about either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.'
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151961/Majority-Conservatives-Romney-Acceptable.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/151961/Majority-Conservatives-Romney-Acceptable.aspx)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fzolkt-ar70gifqibfzm9qa.gif&hash=a35326c174a3eb00acb9c3388d76f368dd30ac4e)
1.3% of the vote in.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
Mitt Romney: 859
Ron Paul: 652
Jon Huntsman: 342
Newt Gingrich: 266
Rick Santorum: 264
Write-ins: 13
Buddy Roemer: 9
Fred Karger: 9
Rick Perry: 7
I'd like to see the night end with Romney 40%+ and Paul 25%+ :)
3.7% in
Lol, Rick Perry
Mitt Romney: 4,380
Ron Paul: 2,859
Jon Huntsman: 1,724
Newt Gingrich: 1,387
Rick Santorum: 1,221
Rick Perry: 73
Buddy Roemer: 49
Michele Bachmann: 18
Herman Cain: 9
I just clicked on that link and Perry has, alas, overtaken Roemer :(
I think I'll be watching this on Fox.
4.7% in
Romney: 36.6%
Ron Paul: 24.6%
Jon Huntsman: 14.7%
Newt Gingrich: 11.5%
Rick Santorum: 10.1%
Rick Perry: .7%
By the way here's an even better website
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/Primary/NH
6.6% in
Romney: 35.9%
Ron Paul: 25.3%
Jon Huntsman: 15%
Newt Gingrich: 11.1%
Rick Santorum: 10%
Rick Perry: .7%
So the people who want constant updates can just click that link? :w00t:
I wonder what substance Shep Smith is made of :mellow:
Fox have decided that shouting is a way to get excitement going. 'We start RIGHT NOW!'
Edit: Gloriously apocalyptic music moment though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 07:54:08 PM
So the people who want constant updates can just click that link? :w00t:
Sure, but then you lose the benefit of my lovely commentary. ;)
10.3% in
Romney: 35.5%
Ron Paul: 25%
Jon Huntsman: 16.2%
Newt Gingrich: 10.9%
Rick Santorum: 9.9.%
Rick Perry: .7%
The cable networks have called it for Romney.
12% in
Romney: 35.5%
Ron Paul: 24.4%
Jon Huntsman: 17.4%
Newt Gingrich: 10.5%
Rick Santorum: 9.7%
Rick Perry: .7%
That should now allow him to give a primetime broadcast victory speech in 30-60 minutes; a good publicity boost.
I guess Rick Perry is unloved in the Granite State.
It also looks like Santorum pulled a Huckabee, wasting his momentum campaigning in New Hampshire after Iowa instead of focusing on South Carolina (where Huckabee ended up losing to McCain by 2 points).
Two points stand out for me.
This is the best speech I've seen Romney give, he occassionally looks human. He is dealing with a few genuine mentalists in the crowd.
Also Romney has five sons but has chosen the least handsome to stand behind him. Disappointing <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 08:34:45 PM
Two points stand out for me.
This is the best speech I've seen Romney give, he occassionally looks human. He is dealing with a few genuine mentalists in the crowd.
Also Romney has five sons but has chosen the least handsome to stand behind him. Disappointing <_<
Agree. That son did not have a pretty face. :(
The better-looking Romney sons were on the wings.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F01%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F11romney-kiss%2F11romney-kiss-blog480.jpg&hash=3348bfd4909dffaa0f97890260e9c5129d72a119)
I clocked them :)
I find it impossible to dislike a candidate whose crowd chants 'end the Fed!' and who uses the line 'studying the history of monetary policy in this country...' :wub:
A passionate, vigorous speech from Paul now. He physically inspires me more than the younger (!) McCain ever did. :D
Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 09:08:56 PM
A passionate, vigorous speech from Paul now. He physically inspires me more than the younger (!) McCain ever did. :D
:x on many levels.
This isn't going well for Huntsman. He really needs to fire his lighting man.
On the other hand his daughters look lovely.
Edit: And his crowd are by far the weakest chanters <_<
Got a decent return in with 50.2% reporting.
Romney: 37.3%
Ron Paul: 23.4%
Jon Huntsman: 17.3%
Newt Gingrich: 9.9%
Rick Santorum: 9.8%
Rick Perry: .8%
I'm glad Huntsman is getting some standing, 3rd in the NH primary it looks like. Good. I'm liking Huntsman the more I see him. I tend to hope he can surge some, gain some momentum, give another choice.
So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:05:38 PM
I clocked them :)
I find it impossible to dislike a candidate whose crowd chants 'end the Fed!' and who uses the line 'studying the history of monetary policy in this country...' :wub:
OK, that's it. Your next dumb parliamentary election, I'm "supporting" the BNP.
Quote from: KRonn on January 10, 2012, 09:47:25 PM
So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.
He's about as radical as Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson was scum.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 09:49:24 PM
OK, that's it. Your next dumb parliamentary election, I'm "supporting" the BNP.
:lol: Watching him speak I like Santorum in his way.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 09:56:36 PM
Thomas Jefferson was scum.
:o
He's the second best Founding Father called Tom!
Quote from: KRonn on January 10, 2012, 09:47:25 PM
So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy.
His foreign policy is most consistent with his economic policy. The others want to have both tax cuts for the rich and a bloated military.
Quote from: SheilbhHe's the second best Founding Father called Tom!
Owned slaves: check.
Damnbargo: indeed.
Hatred of strong central government: yes.
Rich crypto-aristocrat: he was.
Opposed Alexander Hamilton: he did. :angry:
Yeah that last one isn't helping. Aaron Burr's my hero :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 10, 2012, 10:05:02 PM
Quote from: SheilbhHe's the second best Founding Father called Tom!
Owned slaves: check.
Damnbargo: indeed.
Hatred of strong central government: yes.
Rich crypto-aristocrat: he was.
Opposed Alexander Hamilton: he did. :angry:
You forgot the 'traitor' bit.
Yeah, but that applied to everyone.
Exit polls
http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nh
Also, latest results
71.1% reporting.
Romney: 37.9%
Ron Paul: 23.6%
Jon Huntsman: 16.7%
Rick Santorum: 9.7%
Newt Gingrich: 9.7%
Rick Perry: .7%
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Aaron Burr's my hero :P
Yeah we can call that a personal failing. :console:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 10:07:15 PM
Yeah that last one isn't helping. Aaron Burr's my hero :P
WTF? Why?
Also Romney is looking stronger as the night wears on.
84.7% reporting.
Romney: 39.2%
Ron Paul: 22.9%
Jon Huntsman: 16.8%
Newt Gingrich: 9.5%
Rick Santorum: 9.4%
Rick Perry: .7%
Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 08:56:12 PM
The better-looking Romney sons were on the wings.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F01%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F11romney-kiss%2F11romney-kiss-blog480.jpg&hash=3348bfd4909dffaa0f97890260e9c5129d72a119)
Damn, Mormons are hot. Who is the blond gay guy?
Also, Romney looks increasingly like John Kerry.
Also, love how Gingrich and Santorum attack Romney for being an out of touch wealthy man. Class warfare much? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2012, 02:43:19 AM
Also, love how Gingrich and Santorum attack Romney for being an out of touch wealthy man. Class warfare much? :lol:
Romney doesn't help his case as a bulwalk for the wealthy, though. "President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial"? "Bitter politics of envy"? "Dragged down by a resentment of success"?
Really, Mitt?
I feel bad for Huntsman. A bipartisan gesture by Obama to put a prominent Republican in one of the most important ambassadorial posts in the world for the US, and he's branded a traitor to the party.
Man, the GOP sure hates that negro.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2012, 07:11:44 AM
I feel bad for Huntsman. A bipartisan gesture by Obama to put a prominent Republican in one of the most important ambassadorial posts in the world for the US, and he's branded a traitor to the party.
Man, the GOP sure hates that negro.
Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, thus quitting his ambassadorship after less than two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 07:57:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2012, 07:11:44 AM
I feel bad for Huntsman. A bipartisan gesture by Obama to put a prominent Republican in one of the most important ambassadorial posts in the world for the US, and he's branded a traitor to the party.
Man, the GOP sure hates that negro.
Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, quitting his ambassadorship after only two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.
That makes him sound like an all around tool.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 07:57:20 AM
He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant".
Link, please.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2012, 07:59:30 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 07:57:20 AM
He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant".
Link, please.
Feb 2009: Says the GOP are "inconsequential". Cites Newt Gingrich as the guy he goes to for ideas. Joins the Obama Administration 3 months later.
http://www.salon.com/2009/02/24/huntsman/singleton/ (http://www.salon.com/2009/02/24/huntsman/singleton/)
To be fair, Republicans were inconsequential. What he didn't foresee was that most Americans in 2010 decided they wanted to be inconsequential as well.
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 08:16:31 AM
To be fair, Republicans were inconsequential. What he didn't foresee was that most Americans in 2010 decided they wanted to be inconsequential as well.
Fair? In politics? :D Though, former Senator Arlen Specter had the worse fate; switched from being a Republican in the Senate to being a Democrat; then replaced by a "real" Democratic nominee a year later. :D (The nominee ended up losing.)
Quote from: KRonn on January 10, 2012, 09:47:25 PM
So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.
Well I am going to vote for him because of foreign policy and civil liberty stuff but it will hardly matter by then. This nomination is a formality for Mitt at this point. I mean yeah it would be bad if Paul became dictator and implemented his entire crazy program, but he would not be able to do that even if he won (which he wont) but he is really the only guy who even addresses this stuff for the most part. I think you have it that a big part of it is just that he challenges the establishment that is generating so much frustration and resentment
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2012, 08:50:45 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 10, 2012, 09:47:25 PM
So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.
Well I am going to vote for him because of foreign policy and civil liberty stuff but it will hardly matter by then. This nomination is a formality for Mitt at this point. I mean yeah it would be bad if Paul became dictator and implemented his entire crazy program, but he would not be able to do that even if he won (which he wont) but he is really the only guy who even addresses this stuff for the most part. I think you have it that a big part of it is just that he challenges the establishment that is generating so much frustration and resentment
Yeah but the thing is that he'd be even more ineffective that a typical president. Which is sort of okay if you go with the notion that you'd rather the president be hamstrung and not fuck things up, but I'm not sure we're in a good place to have ineffectual presidents.
Going nowhere beats going in the wrong direction.
Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2012, 09:06:39 AM
Yeah but the thing is that he'd be even more ineffective that a typical president. Which is sort of okay if you go with the notion that you'd rather the president be hamstrung and not fuck things up, but I'm not sure we're in a good place to have ineffectual presidents.
That would be an important point of consideration if I was a member of the Politburo and we were having meetings to determine the President of the People's Republic of America. But since all I am really saying here is 'hey I want politicians to talk, and maybe even do more, about a couple issues Paul brings up' I am not too worried about it. I am in Texas, my state is already a lock to vote Romney in the general so what I do is pretty pointless. The only reason I vote in statewide elections is just because I feel like I should, they are never really contests. Well ok the Democratic Primary in 2008 was pretty competitive and interesting but that was obviously a very unusual set of circumstances.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 07:57:20 AM
Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, thus quitting his ambassadorship after less than two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.
Truthspeak at it's best! :lol:
Of the 8 ambassadors to the PRC before Huntsman, 4 served less than 3 years. The argument that Huntsman's resignation in April 2001 came as a result of his hearing about the results of the election in Nov 2010 is pretty amusing.
The argument that Huntsman resigned as governor of Utah and took the job from Obama because of "Obamamania" (which contains the implication that it was merely coincidental that Huntsman was fluent in Mandarin and had already served in two ambassador-level positions).
Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 08:12:43 AM
Feb 2009: Says the GOP are "inconsequential". Cites Newt Gingrich as the guy he goes to for ideas. Joins the Obama Administration 3 months later.
http://www.salon.com/2009/02/24/huntsman/singleton/ (http://www.salon.com/2009/02/24/huntsman/singleton/)
I am kinda curious: did you read the article and not understand it, or did you read it, understand it, and deliberately ignore it to come up with the "Says the GOP are "inconsequential"" canard?
If the latter, why would you make yourself out to be so blatantly dishonest? Anyone else who reads that can see that Huntsman is saying that "saying the GOP's leaders in Congress are "inconsequential" and that they've failed to move beyond "gratuitous partisanship."" That's GOP leaders, not the GOP overall. A pretty huge difference.
EDIT: Actually, what he says is that the statements of the GOP House leadership are inconsequential, an even more qualified statement than that the leaders are inconsequential:
Quote"I don't even know the congressional leadership," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, shrugging off questions about top congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential — completely."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/utah-governor-ignores-top-gop-legislators/
Feels like the GrumberDeathStar has cleared the planet and is locking on to a target....
Romney leading Obama in Florida by 3 points
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-trails-romney-in-florida-110456.html
If only the election really was right now. Instead we have the most tiresome 11 months in politics ahead of us.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2012, 09:35:33 AM
If only the election really was right now. Instead we have the most tiresome 11 months in politics ahead of us.
I'm tired of news broadcasts from some shithole diner in bumfuck, NH.
Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2012, 09:06:39 AM
Yeah but the thing is that he'd be even more ineffective that a typical president. Which is sort of okay if you go with the notion that you'd rather the president be hamstrung and not fuck things up, but I'm not sure we're in a good place to have ineffectual presidents.
I think part of his attraction is that he says he doesn't want power. He wants the Presidency to do very little beyond trying to influence things. After the cult of the Presidency that's an attractive tonic.
But I agree with the line I read somewhere that he's the most lovably dangerous man in America. I'm a big fan.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2012, 09:35:33 AM
If only the election really was right now. Instead we have the most tiresome 11 months in politics ahead of us.
The only reason it's tiresome is that you're actually paying attention to it right now. Primary season is way more interesting than Congress debating a bill for several months.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
The only reason it's tiresome is that you're actually paying attention to it right now. Primary season is way more interesting than Congress debating a bill for several months.
It's semi interesting right now but those 85 debates were torture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 09:48:05 AM
It's semi interesting right now but those 85 debates were torture.
Self-inflicted. :contract:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 11, 2012, 09:37:30 AM
I'm tired of news broadcasts from some shithole diner in bumfuck, NH.
That's the only fun part of the entire primary season, to me. Republican Iowa voters are way too narrow to make for interesting interviews, and after NH politics go from retail to wholesale, so interviews are more general. The NH interviews are specific and, generally, somewhat informed. I'll miss 'em.
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2012, 09:18:17 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 07:57:20 AM
Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, thus quitting his ambassadorship after less than two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.
Truthspeak at it's best! :lol:
Of the 8 ambassadors to the PRC before Huntsman, 4 served less than 3 years. The argument that Huntsman's resignation in April 2001 came as a result of his hearing about the results of the election in Nov 2010 is pretty amusing.
The argument that Huntsman resigned as governor of Utah and took the job from Obama because of "Obamamania" (which contains the implication that it was merely coincidental that Huntsman was fluent in Mandarin and had already served in two ambassador-level positions).
Agreed.
Huntsman took the job because the President of the United States selected him for what is probably the single most important diplomatic portfolio we have.
Bravo to Obama for offering such a criticial post to the most qualified person for the job, and bravo for Huntsman for putting the national interest over partisanship and accepting.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
The only reason it's tiresome is that you're actually paying attention to it right now. Primary season is way more interesting than Congress debating a bill for several months.
Granted. Ok it is the most tiresome 11 months in news and current events. I try to avoid following the election but it is all people will be talking about.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2012, 08:50:45 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 10, 2012, 09:47:25 PM
So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.
Well I am going to vote for him because of foreign policy and civil liberty stuff but it will hardly matter by then. This nomination is a formality for Mitt at this point. I mean yeah it would be bad if Paul became dictator and implemented his entire crazy program, but he would not be able to do that even if he won (which he wont) but he is really the only guy who even addresses this stuff for the most part. I think you have it that a big part of it is just that he challenges the establishment that is generating so much frustration and resentment
Contrasted to Paul, I like Gingrich for his views on real change, better ways of doing things, in government. He has had some great ideas, and his forum/think tank spell out a lot of it. Lots of good stuff. He did create some change as Speaker, such as reforming Welfare under the Clinton admin, and other things. He seems to know better how to get things done. On the other hand, Ron Paul hasn't seemed to get his ideas through after all his years in Congress. Don't get me wrong, I like Paul's ideas on more limited govt, less foreign involvement. I just think he's too angry, isn't well thought out. Such as Iran having nukes would be ok by him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2012, 09:11:55 AM
Going nowhere beats going in the wrong direction.
There is always a direction.
Quote from: KRonn on January 11, 2012, 10:49:01 AM
Contrasted to Paul, I like Gingrich for his views on real change, better ways of doing things, in government. He has had some great ideas, and his forum/think tank spell out a lot of it. Lots of good stuff. He did create some change as Speaker, such as reforming Welfare under the Clinton admin, and other things. He seems to know better how to get things done. On the other hand, Ron Paul hasn't seemed to get his ideas through after all his years in Congress. Don't get me wrong, I like Paul's ideas on more limited govt, less foreign involvement. I just think he's too angry, isn't well thought out. Such as Iran having nukes would be ok by him.
Gingrich's views are...well...I heard that debate he had on C-Span where basically he was calling for the judiciary to be more subordinate to the legislature. Specifically regarding a specific Federal Court he did not like. Announcing your contempt for the balance of power and the Constitution, and explicitely because a specific court does things you don't like, is not going to win many points with me. Especially since that strikes me as something that might actually happen as opposed to reinstating the Gold standard.
Paul's non-interventionist ideas obviously make him vulnerable to the accusation that therefore evil committed abroad is good or ok. Which is ridiculous.
But really what are we talking about here? Neither of these guys is going to get the nomination.
I don't buy this immaculate appointment story on Huntsman in China. I don't know about his motivation, but there was a definite, cynical political upside for Obama. He acknowledged and so did others at the time, he was removing a better-Mitt from the GOP field and it was praised as a very successful tactical move.
I think it was, though given Huntsman's failings, it was probably unnecessary.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2012, 11:11:29 AM
Gingrich's views are...well...I heard that debate he had on C-Span where basically he was calling for the judiciary to be more subordinate to the legislature. Specifically regarding a specific Federal Court he did not like. Announcing your contempt for the balance of power and the Constitution, and explicitely because a specific court does things he doesn't like, is not going to win many points with me. Especially since that strikes me as something that might actually happen as opposed to reinstating the Gold standard.
Paul's non-interventionist ideas obviously make him vulnerable to the accusation that therefore evil committed abroad is good or ok. Which is ridiculous.
But really what are we talking about here? Neither of these guys is going to get the nomination.
I agree with you that Paul's ideas, while unrealistic, are at least honest. Gingrich is opposed to government waste unless it is the millions of dollars of money the government is paying to him to "advise" it. Gingrich may have some good ideas, but he is way too personally sold out to the establishment for me to think for a moment that he proposes any of his ideas out of altruism. Paul would promote ideas that hurt him personally, I would think, if they fit his philosophy about "what is good for the country."
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
I don't buy this immaculate appointment story on Huntsman in China. I don't know about his motivation, but there was a definite, cynical political upside for Obama. He acknowledged and so did others at the time, he was removing a better-Mitt from the GOP field and it was praised as a very successful tactical move.
I think it was, though given Huntsman's failings, it was probably unnecessary.
Interesting. Got a cite or clue as to a source on Obama acknowledging that he appointed Huntsman as Ambassador to China to get Huntsman out of the 2012 race? That would be a remarkably cynical acknowledgement for even so inexperienced a pol as Obama.
Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2012, 11:26:27 AM
Interesting. Got a cite or clue as to a source on Obama acknowledging that he appointed Huntsman as Ambassador to China to get Huntsman out of the 2012 race? That would be a remarkably cynical acknowledgement for even so inexperienced a pol as Obama.
I don't think that's the whole reason. Huntsman was a good appointment with, as I say, a rather cynical, tactical upside for Obama. He made a joke about it when asked about Huntsman possibly running for President. Obama replied that he was sure Huntsman's record of working so very well with him would help in a Republican primary.
I like this article. I agree with it, but it could be nonsense. The main reason I like it though is I think it's quite an original way of looking at the subject which is difficult to pull off in an election year.
QuoteSafe + Moderate ≠ Electable
Low-beta isn't always better.
• By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
The conventional wisdom among the chattering class about the Republican field is that voters face a choice between "electability" and "ideology." But a careful look at elections since the end of World War II suggests that is not the case. What most pundits think of as "electable," a safe candidate attractive to moderate voters, has historically been highly unlikely to unseat an incumbent president. In the five elections since World War II in which the party out of power has picked a "safe" candidate to take on a sitting president, the result was defeat for the supposedly safe, electable challenger.
To understand why this is not always the case, consider the math of an election as composed of two parts: the "normal" or "expected" result and the variability or chance part around that normal result. The term used in markets to denote this chance or variable part is "beta." A high-beta stock—or a high-beta candidate—might do a lot better or a lot worse than what would normally be expected, whereas a low-beta candidate (or stock) is pretty much going to do as expected, or, in the case of a stock, as the rest of the market does.
If there is an election a party would normally be expected to win, the smart thing to do is to nominate a low-beta candidate. If, on the other hand, a party is thought likely to lose, it might select a high-beta candidate. That would increase its chances of winning, though it would also increase its chances of losing big.
Statistically, the odds of winning depend a lot on whether there is an incumbent seeking reelection, as has happened in 10 of the 16 presidential races since World War II. Incumbency offers tremendous advantages, by some estimates adding at least 3 points to the "normal" result, turning a 50-50 election into one that is 53-47. Job performance matters, so a bad economy tends to subtract from this edge. With subpar growth, but no recession, President Obama might normally be expected to win narrowly, say by 1 percentage point.
If that model is right and the Republicans ran a "zero-beta" candidate, one with absolutely no variability around the "normal" result, he would perform quite respectably but lose. To be precise, he would lose by one point, 50.5 to 49.5. A very low-beta candidate, say one with a variability equivalent to half a point, would have an equal chance of producing a "tie" or losing 51-49. A high-beta candidate, with 10 times the variability of that very low-beta candidate, would have an equal chance of winning 54.5-45.5 or losing big, by 55-45. But if a party really wants to win—and doesn't care about how badly it might lose—it should pick a high-beta candidate.
Stated simply, given the incumbent's built-in advantage, the opposition party must nominate someone who will "shake things up" in order to win. After all, if an election was simply going to be a rerun of the previous election, the incumbent would win again. Indeed, running the same opposing candidate as the last time is the ultimate "low beta" strategy—the candidate has been vetted, is therefore "safe," has good national name identification, and obviously has the support of the party machinery. But this recalls Einstein's famous definition of insanity—doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result. Actually both parties have tried this—Dewey ran in 1944 and 1948 and garnered just as many votes both times; Stevenson ran in 1952 and 1956 and got clobbered by roughly the same margin.
There were three other postwar incumbent elections in which the opposition party tried the next safest thing, picking a party stalwart who had experience running for national office. Bob Dole, Senate Republican leader in 1996 and a runner-up in the 1988 presidential contest, was one such example. So was Walter Mondale in 1984, who had been the vice presidential candidate in the two previous contests. John Kerry was also "safe" in 2004, a war hero running in a nation at war. Kerry, with the least experience, probably had the highest beta of these candidates and, by the way, came the closest to unseating the incumbent. And unlike his lower-beta colleagues, Kerry actually increased his party's popular vote over its previous performance. Still, low-beta choices have been zero-for-five at unseating incumbents.
By contrast, the five high-beta candidates who have taken on incumbents have shaken things up, sometimes in a positive way producing a rare victory over an incumbent, and sometimes in a negative way producing a disastrous landslide. Two obvious disasters were Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972, and these are the candidates most people think of when they think that high-beta candidates can't be elected. But Ronald Reagan was the high-beta choice in 1980—and incumbent President Jimmy Carter's preferred opponent. High-beta candidates can also be "unknowns" who simply capture the imagination or bring in a new class of voter. Carter was one such candidate in 1976, running against his party's establishment and as a Washington outsider. Bill Clinton in 1992 was one of the highest-beta candidates ever in purely statistical terms; he actually ran third in the polls in the summer of 1992. He was also the first Boomer in a country that had been governed by World War II-era G.I.s for the previous 32 years. And Clinton, like Carter, appealed to a part of the country long ostracized by the Democratic establishment—the South.
Each of these successful high-beta candidates brought in new votes. Clinton's 45 million was the highest total received by a Democrat until that time, even though he won with just 43 percent of the vote. And of course, Reagan reshaped the political landscape, creating the famous "Reagan Democrat."
This is not to say that it can't be different this time—Romney, the obvious low-beta candidate, could win. As they say in markets, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But it is certainly not the case that, based on history, he is obviously the most "electable." Statistically, he may be the least electable. But he may well be the candidate most likely to put in a "respectable" showing. After all, a Santorum or Gingrich might be more like a Goldwater than a Reagan.
The real attractiveness of a low-beta candidate to a party establishment is not the chance that he will win the White House, it is that other incumbents, particularly in Congress, maximize their chances for reelection precisely because things are not shaken up. Incumbents like low-beta candidates above them on the ballot. That is why the Republican establishment in Washington is overwhelmingly supportive of Mitt Romney. He maximizes the chances that Republicans hold the House and take the Senate. And there is an added bonus—if the low-beta "establishment" candidate happens to win, he is beholden to the establishment.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have nothing to disclose. I am not affiliated with any campaign and haven't even contributed to any of the candidates. But we should realize that the electability argument is a phony one the way it is currently framed. What really should matter is which candidate will actually enact a very ambitious legislative agenda during the first six months of 2013—the historic window of opportunity for legislative accomplishment. For if we do not achieve entitlement reform, tax law changes, and regulatory improvements that lead to faster economic growth and a sharply falling deficit, by late 2013 markets will be treating us the way they are now treating Italy. And since the voters intuitively sense this, nominating the individual most likely to pull off an ambitious legislative agenda in 2013 will probably also mean nominating the most electable candidate in 2012.
Lawrence B. Lindsey's most recent book is What a President Should Know . . . but Most Learn Too Late.
http://news.yahoo.com/cyber-debate-parody-funny-or-die/ (http://news.yahoo.com/cyber-debate-parody-funny-or-die/)
The first five minutes seem mildly amusing at times, but not more than that. Too much slapstick, and not enough subtle spoofing.
Quote. Bill Clinton in 1992 was one of the highest-beta candidates ever in purely statistical terms
That's absurd - Clinton was the low-beta candidate of that primary; indeed that is why he won.
The #2 guy in that race in terms of votes and delegats was Jerry Brown; no one in their right mind would confuse him for a low beta candidate
Then was Tsongas, who was moderate, but hadn't held any office for eight years because he had been recovering from cancer (which eventually killed him a few years later).
Also in the race were (Bob) Kerrey and Harkin - both Senators with liberal reps who Clinton outflanked from the right. Kerrey's campaign basically crashed in NH; Harkin went nowhere after Iowa.
Others included Gene McCarthy and Lyndon LaRouche (!)
there was very much an ABC dynamic in that campaign where support swung wildly to the anti-Clinton candidate de jour, but with Clinton prevailing due to perceived electability and strong support from party insiders.
If only Cuomo had run :weep:
Wouldn't the best strategy be to run a low-beta candidate against an unpopular incumbent, and a high-beta candidate against a popular one?
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:58:45 PM
Wouldn't the best strategy be to run a low-beta candidate against an unpopular incumbent, and a high-beta candidate against a popular one?
Yes. The assumption being snuck in into this overlong analysis of a very simple idea is that the incumbent is always the favorite.
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
Yes. The assumption being snuck in into this overlong analysis of a very simple idea is that the incumbent is always the favorite.
He devotes about 3-4 paragraphs to that. I bolded them.
My recollection is that Kerry wasn't so much outflanked on policy as he was opposition researched (i.e. Swiftboated) on his Vietnam death squad days.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
Yes. The assumption being snuck in into this overlong analysis of a very simple idea is that the incumbent is always the favorite.
He devotes about 3-4 paragraphs to that. I bolded them.
The article works with the assumptions given, and produces historical examples, but it seems to make sense to me that some incumbents are likely to become unpopular during their terms regardless of/even including the "incumbent advantage".
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
Yes. The assumption being snuck in into this overlong analysis of a very simple idea is that the incumbent is always the favorite.
He devotes about 3-4 paragraphs to that. I bolded them.
I did read them, and I stand by my statement. In those bolded paragraphs, he inplies that the advantage may be big or small, but it's always there (and thus the opposition guy must always be the shaker-upper).
So Sheilbh's article suggests the Republicans should go for Ron Paul. :cool:
Here is my current projection of the electoral map if the economy stagnates or declines through to November.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=fdp (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=fdp)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012electionmapB.png&hash=7b11304e1f8b57314fa57b3dd23ec0de69eb7e65)
You a sporting man Phil?
Sometimes.
That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.
In September 2011, Obama only led Romney by 2 points in Connecticut: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CT_0930925.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CT_0930925.pdf)
Keep in mind that Romney was a Governor-next-door and a "New England Republican".
In November 2011, Romney led Obama by 5 points in Michigan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/mitt-romney-obama-michigan-poll_n_1104942.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/mitt-romney-obama-michigan-poll_n_1104942.html)
Keep in mind that Romney was born in Michigan, and his father was an automobile CEO and 3-term Governor there.
He's not gonna be seen as a "New England Republican" when this is all over. He'll be seen as a Republican. And favorite son status isn't what it used to be- Gore would have been President if he had won Tennessee; he didn't. Also, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since Nixon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
Quote. Bill Clinton in 1992 was one of the highest-beta candidates ever in purely statistical terms
That's absurd - Clinton was the low-beta candidate of that primary; indeed that is why he won.
The #2 guy in that race in terms of votes and delegats was Jerry Brown; no one in their right mind would confuse him for a low beta candidate
Then was Tsongas, who was moderate, but hadn't held any office for eight years because he had been recovering from cancer (which eventually killed him a few years later).
Also in the race were (Bob) Kerrey and Harkin - both Senators with liberal reps who Clinton outflanked from the right. Kerrey's campaign basically crashed in NH; Harkin went nowhere after Iowa.
Others included Gene McCarthy and Lyndon LaRouche (!)
there was very much an ABC dynamic in that campaign where support swung wildly to the anti-Clinton candidate de jour, but with Clinton prevailing due to perceived electability and strong support from party insiders.
But they were all 'high beta' candidates in 1992.
Bush 41's approval ratings were through the roof in 1991 when everyone would have to set up their 1992 presidential campaigns. He had just won the GUlf War, and the economy hadn't quite fallen into recession yet. The conventional wisdom was that Bush was a lock, and that the Dems would have to wait until '96 to recapture the White House. So, one after another all the high profile democrats declined to run in 1991, leaving a bunch of also-rans and never-weres.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:34:03 AM
He's not gonna be seen as a "New England Republican" when this is all over. He'll be seen as a Republican. And favorite son status isn't what it used to be- Gore would have been President if he had won Tennessee; he didn't. Also, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since Nixon.
Al Gore only won Minnesota by 2% in 2000.
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
I did read them, and I stand by my statement. In those bolded paragraphs, he inplies that the advantage may be big or small, but it's always there (and thus the opposition guy must always be the shaker-upper).
I'd agree with that. Governments lose elections, but the opposition needs to provide a compelling choice and reason for change. In most elections running a 'safe' candidate won't do that and the non-incumbent will always be less of a 'safe' candidate than the guy already in office. Oppositions always need to run an election based on it being time to change.
QuoteMy recollection is that Kerry wasn't so much outflanked on policy as he was opposition researched (i.e. Swiftboated) on his Vietnam death squad days.
I don't think anyone would suggest Kerry's defeat had anything to do with policy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.
Don't ruin Yi's action.
P.S. Yi, if you need reinsurance on that bet, the line is open (up to $10,000 limit of coverage, though).
http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.
Yay?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.
I don't think Philip V is being any more honest with his map than he was with his claims that Huntsman was "quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now 'irrelevant'." Now that he has produced two such whoppers in a row, it is obvious that he is just trolling pretty badly*, because no one could be that stupid and still be able figure out how to post here.
*unless he thinks he is being funny, which would be even more pathetic.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 12, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.
Yay?
That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2012, 11:20:44 AM
That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.
It is. But my love of quizes is overwhelming.
Huntsman - 61%
Obama - 56%
Perry - 48%
Romney - 48%
Paul - 37%
Gingrich - 36%
Santorum - 31%
Quote from: fahdiz on January 12, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.
Yay?
It matched me up with Newt. I must have done something to piss it off.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2012, 11:29:49 AM
It matched me up with Newt. I must have done something to piss it off.
:D
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2012, 11:20:44 AM
That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.
It's basically OKCupid for politics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Huntsman - 61%
Obama - 56%
I dislike quizzes and definitely am not going to one that's shyte, but I'm curious what questions you answered that pushed your Hunstman score above your Obama score.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 12, 2012, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2012, 11:20:44 AM
That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.
It's basically OKCupid for politics.
Every time I clicked on one of the questions, it had to load a new page and then I'd have to go to the next question. Quizzes that just go in order from question to question are better. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Huntsman - 61%
Obama - 56%
I dislike quizzes and definitely am not going to one that's shyte, but I'm curious what questions you answered that pushed your Hunstman score above your Obama score.
It doesn't say.
I'd guess a combo of moderate pro-life, liking Huntsman's tax plan and all its elements and thinking that while we should act on the environment I don't really care that much.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:34:03 AM
He's not gonna be seen as a "New England Republican" when this is all over. He'll be seen as a Republican. And favorite son status isn't what it used to be- Gore would have been President if he had won Tennessee; he didn't. Also, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since Nixon.
I would be shocked if Romney won Massachusetts. Even though a former governor, this state is very hard to win for Republican President. Romney isn't all that popular, though as a more moderate Repub that works better for him here. The state voted for Reagan though, so it could happen though if certain circumstances happen like an ever worsening economy. And Romney would have to be seen quite a good alternative to Obama, which will take a lot to have happen here.
Quote from: KRonn on January 12, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:34:03 AM
He's not gonna be seen as a "New England Republican" when this is all over. He'll be seen as a Republican. And favorite son status isn't what it used to be- Gore would have been President if he had won Tennessee; he didn't. Also, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since Nixon.
I would be shocked if Romney won Massachusetts. Even though a former governor, this state is very hard to win for Republican President. Romney isn't all that popular, though as a more moderate Repub that works better for him here. The state voted for Reagan though, so it could happen though if certain circumstances happen like an ever worsening economy. And Romney would have to be seen quite a good alternative to Obama, which will take a lot to have happen here.
Yeah I don't remember him as beloved.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 12, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.
Yay?
*shrug* I got Obama then Huntsman, although Huntsman was 20 points back.
Huntsman 60 Obama 59 Paul 54
Quote from: Phillip V on January 12, 2012, 09:05:20 AM
Here is my current projection of the electoral map if the economy stagnates or declines through to November.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=fdp (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=fdp)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012electionmapB.png&hash=7b11304e1f8b57314fa57b3dd23ec0de69eb7e65)
Lololololololol. Fuck it, just give 'em California and New York, if you're gonna be this implausible.
Yeah Phil is smoking some serious good dope if he thinks that is plausible.
I guess he really believes everything the Republicans say.
You can go ahead and color in Washington and Oregon blue, that's a given.
Gingrich's latest attack ad is about Romney's dog in 1983?
That is the single biggest reason I dislike Romney...
What did the Dog do.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2012, 09:10:26 PM
Gingrich's latest attack ad is about Romney's dog in 1983?
This is a two-fold issue; additional proof that Mitt Romney is a soulless Vulcan, and it's well known that Gingrich has always been an animal advocate.
Romney fired his dog. It had failed him. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2012, 09:55:06 PM
Romney fired his dog. It had failed him. :(
I better not get blamed this time.
Mormons. :rolleyes:
Actually, I just looked it up. He put a dog on the roof of his fucking car for a 12 hour trip? Jesus, I told you he was evil.
Ideologue: 172. The rest of you: maybe like 1 or 2.
That's not especially evil.
"Not especially." :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2012, 10:02:20 PM
Actually, I just looked it up. He put a dog on the roof of his fucking car for a 12 hour trip? Jesus, I told you he was evil.
Ideologue: 172. The rest of you: maybe like 1 or 2.
Oh right, I remember this from 08 now.
He stopped when urine started pouring down the window and hosed the dog down :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2012, 10:19:33 PM
He stopped when urine started pouring down the window and hosed the dog down :o
Urine isn't diarrhea.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Lololololololol. Fuck it, just give 'em California and New York, if you're gonna be this implausible.
No shit, even a GOP landslide would probably only net 330~ EV.
If Mitt wins it'll be by a small margin.
He's the safe candidate but that doesn't mean electable. In fact a safe candidate running against an incumbent only wins if the economy is awful. Otherwise he loses, but by a small margin. Better to roll the dice on someone who's not safe. You might lose big like Goldwater, but you might win big like Reagen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2012, 10:23:06 PM
He's the safe candidate but that doesn't mean electable. In fact a safe candidate running against an incumbent only wins if the economy is awful. Otherwise he loses, but by a small margin. Better to roll the dice on someone who's not safe. You might lose big like Goldwater, but you might win big like Reagen.
:yawn:
We already the article.
:blush:
I post less than 5% of the articles I read so it's hard to remember which one's I've posted here.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2012, 10:28:08 PM
:blush:
I post less than 5% of the articles I read so it's hard to remember which one's I've posted here.
You didn't actually post that article, so it is okay. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2012, 10:22:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2012, 10:19:33 PM
He stopped when urine started pouring down the window and hosed the dog down :o
Urine isn't diarrhea.
And still inside the cage, as I understood it.
I also like how his kids were just all "OMFG that's gross!" or whatever Mormons say when they need a forceful interjection, instead of "OMFG dad our dog is SCARED OUT OF HIS TINY MIND."
Someone should strap Mitt's cruel ass to the top of a car heading to Ontario, and see how he likes it. Presumably he would react with grace under pressure, but if he does shit himself, we can always hose him down.
All you animal fags can die.
Well, he could've just put the dog to sleep before the trip, and gotten a new one at his destination. Mitt deserves some credit for not taking that easy way out.
I was thinking about comparing it to people who drive all over with a dog running free in the bed of their pickup trucks, but they don't usually do that for 12 hours in a stretch.
Not the worst of sins in a presidential candidate, but he is still a prick. Another good example from politicians for why I don't bother to vote anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2012, 11:33:57 PM
Well, he could've just put the dog to sleep before the trip, and gotten a new one at his destination. Mitt deserves some credit for not taking that easy way out.
He could have left the dog at home and hired someone to sit it while the family was on vacation. Then he could have fired the sitter when that got home--he would have enjoyed that.
Here's my prediction. I call it "The 'O' Zone" (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffh)
On the other hand, I think it's plausible for it to turn out like this: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffi
My prediction:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2F2012ElectionPrediction.jpg&hash=96093e31db2cbfa269e79bab11950c8efb6f916d)
<_<
Quote from: fahdiz on January 12, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.
Yay?
My top issues came out as Healthcare, Gay Rights, Immigration, and Guns. They gave me Barry at 61% followed by Huntsman and Perry.
I really am a 2nd Amendment diehard despite my socialism.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2F20icbop.jpg&hash=d764f12ca6397d405aff334576c53da2dd7b4ea9)
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffl (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffl)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.270towin.com%2F2012_election_predictions.php%3Fmapid%3Dffl&hash=9655538a2bb3cc51bceb20eedcf63f0234952255)
NH and OR to Romney?
:huh:
Romney gets nada in that map. :P
When I do the map, it makes me think the Republicans really do have a good chance of pulling off the election. I don't know how Obama is going to mobilize his "base" in remotely the same way as 2008. I guess the hope for the Democrats is that Romney will similarly leave a lot of people (e.g. Southern religious right, libertarian-leaners) staying home on Election Day.
I think something like this is more plausible for a Romney win.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffv
However, I still think that Obama should be favored for reelection at this point.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 01:49:49 AM
I think something like this is more plausible for a Romney win.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffq
However, I still think that Obama should be favored for reelection at this point.
That doesn't actually show Romney winning.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.
I don't think Philip V is being any more honest with his map than he was with his claims that Huntsman was "quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now 'irrelevant'." Now that he has produced two such whoppers in a row, it is obvious that he is just trolling pretty badly*, because no one could be that stupid and still be able figure out how to post here.
*unless he thinks he is being funny, which would be even more pathetic.
Look. I supported and voted for Obama since January 2007 (he announced in February). People did not initially think he would be the nominee, let alone a Democrat winning North Carolina or Indiana in the general election for the first time in decades. Based on past history, current polling, and the scenario that the economy stagnates or declines by November (and the bad events that would be associated with such conditions), Romney would very likely win in a landslide that I depicted.
So what are the required circumstances for your little scenario?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:19:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2012, 01:49:49 AM
I think something like this is more plausible for a Romney win.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ffq
However, I still think that Obama should be favored for reelection at this point.
That doesn't actually show Romney winning.
So, I forgot to change the name. Why do you got a nit pick me like that. <_<
Anyway, Obama is likely to get all of the Kerry States with perhaps an exception of one or two even if he loses.
Obama '12 fundraising underperforming Bush '04.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71363.html
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 13, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
Not the worst of sins in a presidential candidate, but he is still a prick. Another good example from politicians for why I don't bother to vote anymore.
I couldn't vote for someone who's a dog abuser. And that story was from a Boston Globe profile of Romney. It was used to suggest Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. In all honesty I think it's one of those trivial but not really trivial indicators of character.
That Newt made this site ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-to-campaign-with-pets-and-music/ )makes me like him far more:
http://petswithnewt.com/home/page
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 08:08:46 AM
Obama '12 fundraising underperforming Bush '04.
The Koch brothers haven't stepped in for Obama yet.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 12:46:09 AM
My prediction:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2F2012ElectionPrediction.jpg&hash=96093e31db2cbfa269e79bab11950c8efb6f916d)
<_<
That looks like the status as of February 8th 1861.
Quote from: Viking on January 13, 2012, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 12:46:09 AM
My prediction:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2F2012ElectionPrediction.jpg&hash=96093e31db2cbfa269e79bab11950c8efb6f916d)
<_<
That looks like the status as of February 8th 1861.
Obama reelection = civil war? :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 09:03:22 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 13, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
Not the worst of sins in a presidential candidate, but he is still a prick. Another good example from politicians for why I don't bother to vote anymore.
I couldn't vote for someone who's a dog abuser. And that story was from a Boston Globe profile of Romney. It was used to suggest Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. In all honesty I think it's one of those trivial but not really trivial indicators of character.
That Newt made this site ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-to-campaign-with-pets-and-music/ )makes me like him far more:
http://petswithnewt.com/home/page
I don't really think it shows him to be a dog abuser nor is it particularly revealing about his character today.
Maybe not dog abuser, but definitely dog neglecter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2012, 09:15:11 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 08:08:46 AM
Obama '12 fundraising underperforming Bush '04.
The Koch brothers haven't stepped in for Obama yet.
It ain't the rich man's party for nothing.
Quote from: Viking on January 13, 2012, 11:05:38 AM
That looks like the status as of February 8th 1861.
Too many lines on the left half of the map. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Maybe not dog abuser, but definitely dog neglecter.
Sure although as the original Globe article writer wrote in his new article on the subject - back in 1983, his parents were letting him and his sister roam about freely in the back of the station wagon while driving.
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Maybe not dog abuser, but definitely dog neglecter.
Sure although as the original Globe article writer wrote in his new article on the subject - back in 1983, his parents were letting him and his sister roam about freely in the back of the station wagon while driving.
That's crazy. Did his parents also spank him?
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 12:01:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
Maybe not dog abuser, but definitely dog neglecter.
Sure although as the original Globe article writer wrote in his new article on the subject - back in 1983, his parents were letting him and his sister roam about freely in the back of the station wagon while driving.
That's crazy. Did his parents also spank him?
Tied him to the roof for an hour.
Former Presidential candidate John Edwards is delaying his trial due to a failing heart.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71421.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71421.html)
'Edwards is accused of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws and using about $1 million dollars from campaign donors to cover up his affair and child with Rielle Hunter.'
I have never neglected a dog.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 03:05:53 PM
Former Presidential candidate John Edwards is delaying his trial due to a failing heart.
:(
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 03:05:53 PM
Former Presidential candidate John Edwards is delaying his trial due to a failing heart.
:(
At least it's not the first thing he's failed?
Ron Paul is surging in South Carolina while Santorum is declining. Gingrich holds steady at second. Romney's single-digit lead is tenuous...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html
Good for South Carolina.
Then I suppose I must change accordingly.
Apparently Romney does worse things than merely abuse dogs! :blink:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 04:51:06 PM
Then I suppose I must change accordingly.
How do you plan to game it now that Paul is in 2nd? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 04:55:57 PM
Apparently Romney does worse things than merely abuse dogs! :blink:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/)
Mitt Romney est très beau. :wub:
Mitt Romney speaks French (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8#)
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 04:55:57 PM
Apparently Romney does worse things than merely abuse dogs! :blink:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/
Yet apparently so does Newt. :lol:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/13/waitdoesnt_newt_speak_french_too
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 05:19:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 04:55:57 PM
Apparently Romney does worse things than merely abuse dogs! :blink:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/
Yet apparently so does Newt. :lol:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/13/waitdoesnt_newt_speak_french_too
Oh the secret shame!
Who will be next to be "outed"? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 05:27:27 PM
Oh the secret shame!
Who will be next to be "outed"? :hmm:
Please God let it be Perry. 'Comment dit-on "oops"?'
'Appealing to the Hispanic vote in Florida, Mr. Romney on Wednesday launched a Spanish-speaking ad narrated by his son, with a few words in Spanish from the candidate himself.' :o
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mitt-romney-spanish-language-ad-florida_n_1199085.html
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 05:37:30 PM
'Appealing to the Hispanic vote in Florida, Mr. Romney on Wednesday launched a Spanish-speaking ad narrated by his son, with a few words in Spanish from the candidate himself.' :o
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mitt-romney-spanish-language-ad-florida_n_1199085.html
¡Ay, ay, ay, no es bueno! :o
By all means, candidates, please continue to reinforce the anti-intellectualism of the GOP.
"My God! He even went to college!"
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 05:37:30 PM
'Appealing to the Hispanic vote in Florida, Mr. Romney on Wednesday launched a Spanish-speaking ad narrated by his son, with a few words in Spanish from the candidate himself.' :o
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mitt-romney-spanish-language-ad-florida_n_1199085.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mitt-romney-spanish-language-ad-florida_n_1199085.html)
¡Ay, ay, ay, no es bueno! :o
Let's not forget that Romney's father was Mexican-born, living his early years there. Romney still has dozens of cousins in Mexico. Clearly, we need to demand his birth certificate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 04:56:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 04:51:06 PM
Then I suppose I must change accordingly.
How do you plan to game it now that Paul is in 2nd? :hmm:
You mean Gingrich? :unsure: Gingrich is in second, right?
Heh, I dunno.
After the firing people thing and dog thing, I'm considering voting for Romney now.
The goals are actually dual: 1) extend the primary contest and the period of internecine conflict for as much as possible, weakening the surviving candidate; 2) attempt to secure the nomination of an unelectable person.
Gingrich and Romney are the only big guys I feel are remotely electable--unfortunately, they appear to be the only ones likely to win the nomination. However, Romney may now be the less electable of the two in November, even if he may be the most "nominable" of the two as far as the GOP is concerned.
I think I'll vote for whoever's doing worse closer to the primary, Romney or Gingrich. Gingrich is proving effective in fucking Romney's shit up. On the other hand, if Gingrich is doing very well, I really don't want him nominated. I dunno, I can't put my finger on it, but a Gingrich run makes me slightly worried. :hmm:
Hell, I might vote for Paul.
Man, voting for people you want to win sure is a lot easier than voting for people just to sabotage them.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 05:58:54 PM
You mean Gingrich? :unsure: Gingrich is in second, right?
My bad. I misunderstood Cinco's post.
CBS News: 11 More Solyndras In Obama Energy Program
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/13/cbs_news_11_more_solyndras_in_obama_energy_program.html
Just the tip of the iceberg.
Want to start looking at my electoral map again? ;)
Yeah, nobody cares.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 14, 2012, 11:20:27 AM
Want to start looking at my electoral map again? ;)
It's right back there in your previous post, if I never need to refer to it again. Thanks :)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 05:02:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 13, 2012, 04:55:57 PM
Apparently Romney does worse things than merely abuse dogs! :blink:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/13/newt-gingrich-ad-makes-fun-of-mitt-romney-for-speaking-french/)
Mitt Romney est très beau. :wub:
Mitt Romney speaks French (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8#)
I kept waiting for the bit when he was going to say "Royaumé-Uni nul points"
I just got my absentee ballot in the mail. I have absolutely no idea who to vote for. My preferred candidate is Huntsmen, but odds are decent he will be out of the race by then. I really don't like any of the other candidates. I might go with Cain as a throwaway vote. Romney will probably have the election wrapped up anyways by the time Florida votes in a couple weeks.
I think Huntsman's planning to stay until Florida. He doesn't stand any chance in SC and apparently his wife's from Florida so they want to try and leverage that into votes.
Evangelicals, Seeking Unity, Back Santorum for Nomination
'Evangelical leaders pursued a last-ditch effort on Saturday to exert influence in the Republican presidential primary race, voting to support the candidacy of Rick Santorum in hopes of undercutting Mitt Romney's march to the nomination.'http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/politics/conservative-religious-leaders-seeking-unity-vote-to-back-rick-santorum.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/politics/conservative-religious-leaders-seeking-unity-vote-to-back-rick-santorum.html)
QuoteA week before the South Carolina primary, a group of more than 100 influential Christian conservatives gathered at a ranch here and voted overwhelmingly to rally behind Mr. Santorum. An organizer described the vote as an "unexpected supermajority," a decision that was intended to help winnow the Republican field and consolidate the opposition to Mr. Romney.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F01%2F120114_rick_santorum_social_conservatives_605.jpg&hash=7e4bc15c612d9dc59d4fce4cffecd9a4f76566b3)
Yeah...that's not gonna happen.
Ha, it looks like our nest President will be a mormont, of all things.
I would prefer a judden, but that;s asking too much.
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2012, 05:23:42 AM
Ha, it looks like our nest President will be a mormont, of all things.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodmemorabilia.com%2Ffiles%2Fcache%2Fjimmy-carter-autographed-book-hornets-nest-president-of-the-united-states_9104a5b5f95c2ac3a905a2f053a4f53b.jpg&hash=d3e3cbf1c4e5444f08426d17408cd0a6fd674986)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fagot9players.free.fr%2FCards%2FHouse%2FTargaryen%2FSer-Jorah-Mormont.jpg&hash=5d8e85098b9a84e1d75a3e44dd6cf67609e654e8)
:unsure:
:lol:
I should no t post when their is blood in my alcohol system.
Last Man Standing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOmMZBZGBps
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 04:13:19 AM
Yeah...that's not gonna happen.
They aren't that keen on Catholics, so it seems kinda unlikely.
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2012, 05:23:42 AM
Ha, it looks like our nest President will be a mormont, of all things.
Why, did Obama find Space Jesus?
Romney can finally claim to have broken his yearlong 25% "ceiling" of support among Republicans nationally. He now garners 37% support, leading his closest competitor by 23 points.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2012, 03:08:25 PM
Why, did Obama find Space Jesus?
As our current President, Obama can hardly be called our next President. Siege's clearly starting the Hatch 2016 movement. He'll be 82 years young. :showoff:
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
:( He's dead to me if he endorses Romney.
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
If Romney doesn't get the nomination, Huntsman would be prime VP material.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 09:50:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
:( He's dead to me if he endorses Romney.
Word is that he will. That could bump Romney up five maybe 10 people in the upcoming SC primary.
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
Huntsman dropped out? I figured he's stay until the next few primaries.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2012, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
If Romney doesn't get the nomination, Huntsman would be prime VP material.
No way. Huntsman is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.
He'll go with that young guy Rubio or something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 10:27:38 PMNo way. Huntsman is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.
He'll go with that young guy Rubio or something.
Rubio is, I hope, wise enough to keep his powder dry for 2016.
Huntsman's angling for State.
I'm telling you now, Huntsman will not have a job in any GOP administration in 2012.
Haven't you been watching what happens to Obama's "bipartisan" appointments? It's like trying to leave the Mob. They're dead men.
You're thinking of Gates? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 10:47:30 PM
You're thinking of Gates? :huh:
I was thinking more along the lines of Senator Gregg.
Romney/Paul 2012! :yeah:
You get hit in the head lately?
Oh, look; Raz crying for attention again.
To be fair, that is a valid question to ask in this case.
I wasn't crying, I'm just curious why you would say such a bizarre thing.
Would Paul even accept a VP nomination? He's pretty big on sticking to his principles - it's hard to see him accepting a position where he'd have to always support Romney's policies.
It could be the most contentious Pres-VP relationship since Jefferson & Burr.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 16, 2012, 01:12:45 AM
Would Paul even accept a VP nomination? He's pretty big on sticking to his principles - it's hard to see him accepting a position where he'd have to always support Romney's policies.
It could be the most contentious Pres-VP relationship since Jefferson & Burr.
Is Ron Paul going to gun down Tim Geithner? :o
My VP picks for Romney:
- Retired General and current CIA Director David Petraeus
- Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia
- Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana
- Rep. Ron Paul / Sen. Rand Paul (long-shot)
One may think Huntsman's withdrawal and endorsement might prove little benefit for Romney in South Carolina, but in addition to the momentum boost, Huntsman has been polling about 5% in the state, tied with Rick Perry. At least a third of Huntsman supporters have historically had Romney has their second choice, so every point counts if Romney is to pull at least a razor-thin plurality like McCain did in 2008.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html
Quote from: Phillip V on January 16, 2012, 04:42:59 AM
My VP picks for Romney:
- Retired General and current CIA Director David Petraeus
- Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia
- Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana
- Rep. Ron Paul / Sen. Rand Paul (long-shot)
Romney is going to pick somebody like Palin; a person with true blue red blooded protestant jeebus faith. So my present shortlist is
- Tim Tebow
- Sarah Palin
- Tim Pawlenty
- Haley Barbour
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 05:39:34 AM
Romney is going to pick somebody like Palin; a person with true blue red blooded protestant jeebus faith. So my present shortlist is
- Tim Tebow
- Sarah Palin
- Tim Pawlenty
- Haley Barbour
Tebow can't run until he's 35.
Ron Paul's focus on delegate math.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/ron-pauls-campaign-plots-path-focused-on-delegate-math.html
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2012, 05:46:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 05:39:34 AM
Romney is going to pick somebody like Palin; a person with true blue red blooded protestant jeebus faith. So my present shortlist is
- Tim Tebow
- Sarah Palin
- Tim Pawlenty
- Haley Barbour
Tebow can't run until he's 35.
OK, Stephen Baldwin.
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 06:37:29 AM
OK, Stephen Baldwin.
I see your Stephen Baldwin, and raise you one FRANK STALLONE.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2012, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
If Romney doesn't get the nomination, Huntsman would be prime VP material.
No way. Huntsman is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.
He'll go with that young guy Rubio or something.
Ricky Rubio? :w00t:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Festaticos.sport.es%2Fresources%2Fjpg%2F2%2F0%2F1326613612602.jpg&hash=879609fd9a17849c3ec934ab2bbb2a897ced4f2d)
Quote from: The Larch on January 16, 2012, 07:05:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2012, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Breaking news: some guy named Jon Huntsman was actually running for the Republican nomination until tonight. :huh:
If Romney doesn't get the nomination, Huntsman would be prime VP material.
No way. Huntsman is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.
He'll go with that young guy Rubio or something.
Ricky Rubio? :w00t:
He's been great, why did he play so badly in Spain the last couple of years?
Now that Huntsmen is out, I'm leaning towards a Herman Cain throwaway vote.
Not sure I see the point behind the throwaway vote Jibberjabber. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2012, 05:46:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 05:39:34 AM
Romney is going to pick somebody like Palin; a person with true blue red blooded protestant jeebus faith. So my present shortlist is
- Tim Tebow
- Sarah Palin
- Tim Pawlenty
- Haley Barbour
Tebow can't run until he's 35.
Make him ambassador to Palau.
Then sink his boat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 01:41:13 PM
Not sure I see the point behind the throwaway vote Jibberjabber. :hmm:
My preferred candidate is out; I'm indifferent as to the other candidates(probably going to vote Obama in the general ); Romney is going to win anyways(has a double digit lead in the polls); and Florida is a winner take all primary.
Christ. There's another debate tonight apparently :lol: :bleeding:
Quote from: stjaba on January 16, 2012, 03:17:25 PM
My preferred candidate is out; I'm indifferent as to the other candidates(probably going to vote Obama in the general ); Romney is going to win anyways(has a double digit lead in the polls); and Florida is a winner take all primary.
So don't vote. :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 03:26:38 PM
Christ. There's another debate tonight apparently :lol: :bleeding:
If you were a tree, what branches of that tree would you viciously saw off?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 03:26:38 PM
Christ. There's another debate tonight apparently :lol: :bleeding:
Maybe it's actually a deliberate strategy to in fact choose the running mate; everyone gets bored/dejected by the remaining candidates on offer and through the carnage of the attack ads, your favourite, Palin comes to the rescue, a riding on a white charger/snow mobile to the accompaniment of blaring trumpets and documented in glorious HD by our very on Katmai ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 03:36:01 PM
So don't vote. :mellow:
But I want to do my civic duty :sleep:
Quote from: stjaba on January 16, 2012, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 03:36:01 PM
So don't vote. :mellow:
But I want to do my civic duty :sleep:
Well vote, but spoil your ballot paper. :bowler:
Quote from: stjaba on January 16, 2012, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 03:36:01 PM
So don't vote. :mellow:
But I want to do my civic duty :sleep:
You have a civic duty to vote in a primary election? :huh:
I love Santorum :wub:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 16, 2012, 01:42:00 PM
Make him ambassador to Palau.
Then sink his boat.
Give him a grenade and tell him to throw a short route; he'll sink his own boat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
I love Santorum :wub:
You would. He's practically a distillation of everything I hate about politicians. :lol:
When it comes to politicians, all I know is that if you like 'em, I'll hate 'em (though not necessarily the reverse). ;)
I don't know how to take that :lol:
They've all just slammed Romney. I think he could be the weakest candidate on that stage.
Edit: I still think Huntsman's, just quoted, description of Romney as a 'perfectly lubricated weather-vane' is possibly the best line of this campaign by some distance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
I love Santorum :wub:
Funny, you always struck me as clean.
I find it sad that a debate of the party of Lincoln cheers the line 'South Carolina is at war with this Federal government'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 09:27:46 PM
I don't know how to take that :lol:
As long as you don't take it seriously, mystification is okay. I love your posts, even when they exacerbate my irritation with extremist-lovers. You think outside the box.
QuoteEdit: I still think Huntsman's, just quoted, description of Romney as a 'perfectly lubricated weather-vane' is possibly the best line of this campaign by some distance.
Huntsman is good, but has crappy timing. Maybe later.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 09:32:36 PM
I find it sad that a debate of the party of Lincoln cheers the line 'South Carolina is at war with this Federal government'.
That isn't the party of Lincoln, and hasn't been for seventy years.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2012, 09:37:58 PM
Huntsman is good, but has crappy timing. Maybe later.
I think he ran the wrong campaign. He was trying to run John McCain's 2000 campaign, which I think was a mistake. His first forays into the race were needless needling of conservatives on things like climate change and evolution.
He should have run as a strong conservative (as a Governor he got a very strong rating by the Cato Institute and pro-life groups) with the McCain-ish 'country first' stuff that he developed towards the end of the campaign. I think he could have been a credible, conservative alternative to Romney if he wanted.
I think you have to admire Gingrich's dogged defence of child labour :mellow:
Edit: In all fairness he continues to do well.
Oh joy! Rick Perry got asked a question on something he's not been prepped for, in this case Turkey.
They're apparently being run by 'Islamic terrorists'.
Paul just slammed Patriot Act,
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 10:15:09 PM
Oh joy! Rick Perry got asked a question on something he's not been prepped for, in this case Turkey.
They're apparently being run by 'Islamic terrorists'.
:bleeding:
That civil liberties section by Santorum and Paul was surprising and heartening. So was the fact that Romney got booed over the issue.
I was rather surprised by Santorum's answer. He gets a small boost from me because of that. :)
I think Romney proved he had no idea what he was hypothetically signing.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 16, 2012, 10:30:19 PM
I was rather surprised by Santorum's answer. He gets a small boost from me because of that. :)
The combination of that answer and the felon voting answer makes me like Santorum far more. It's easy to pander to a crowd that angry but I think he's taken two potentially unpopular stands. Aside from Ron Paul he's been the boldest. I hope it pays off with a tick up in SC, he certainly deserves it.
I also like his answer on poverty but that was expected.
On the other hand I think Newt is winning the debate in general. This one's been good though. It's got spark.
Watching Mitt Romney talk about hunting is like watching the elderly talk about sex :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
I love Santorum :wub:
Ur disgusting.. .
actually, I have a hard time immagining gay foreplay before penetrative sex without the enema bags.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 10:15:09 PM
Oh joy! Rick Perry got asked a question on something he's not been prepped for, in this case Turkey.
They're apparently being run by 'Islamic terrorists'.
But isn't that true, with all those Turkish flotillas?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2012, 09:37:58 PM
Huntsman is good, but has crappy timing. Maybe later.
I think he ran the wrong campaign. He was trying to run John McCain's 2000 campaign, which I think was a mistake. His first forays into the race were needless needling of conservatives on things like climate change and evolution.
He should have run as a strong conservative (as a Governor he got a very strong rating by the Cato Institute and pro-life groups) with the McCain-ish 'country first' stuff that he developed towards the end of the campaign. I think he could have been a credible, conservative alternative to Romney if he wanted.
Well he certainly needed to do something difference. If you don't make it in the news, people don't vote for you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 10:38:12 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 16, 2012, 10:30:19 PM
I was rather surprised by Santorum's answer. He gets a small boost from me because of that. :)
The combination of that answer and the felon voting answer makes me like Santorum far more. It's easy to pander to a crowd that angry but I think he's taken two potentially unpopular stands. Aside from Ron Paul he's been the boldest. I hope it pays off with a tick up in SC, he certainly deserves it.
Too bad Santorum doesn't actually care about civil liberties.
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
actually, I have a hard time immagining gay foreplay before penetrative sex without the enema bags.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2012, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
actually, I have a hard time immagining gay foreplay before penetrative sex without the enema bags.
:huh:
Apparently Romney talking about hunting is like Viking talking about gay sex.
QuoteWell he certainly needed to do something difference. If you don't make it in the news, people don't vote for you.
I agree, but his method was wrong. Those weren't core issues for anyone but they suggested what sort of views he held and what sort of campaign he'd run. He was basically signalling to the press not his electorate. It was a big mistake.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 11:06:21 PM
I agree, but his method was wrong. Those weren't core issues for anyone but they suggested what sort of views he held and what sort of campaign he'd run. He was basically signalling to the press not his electorate. It was a big mistake.
He needed to signal to the press to get his name touted about. None of "his" electorate knew much about him.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2012, 11:13:39 PM
He needed to signal to the press to get his name touted about. None of "his" electorate knew much about him.
Yeah, but he was getting touted as someone who was calling his party's base 'crazy'. That's counter-productive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 11:15:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2012, 11:13:39 PM
He needed to signal to the press to get his name touted about. None of "his" electorate knew much about him.
Yeah, but he was getting touted as someone who was calling his party's base 'crazy'. That's counter-productive.
Oh certaimly.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 11:06:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2012, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
actually, I have a hard time immagining gay foreplay before penetrative sex without the enema bags.
:huh:
Apparently Romney talking about hunting is like Viking talking about gay sex.
:lol:
Tonight Rick Perry called the government of Turkey 'Islamic terrorists', seemed to hint towards eventually bombing them and lumped them in with Iran and Syria. Despite this I think that was his best debate performance by a mile and he may do okay, though not well enough, in SC.
I don't know if that says more about Perry, his party or South Carolina :mellow:
Edit: Also two further thoughts. First the extremism of this party right now is scary.
Second I don't know how this Super PAC stuff is going in the US. But does it hurt Romney that he simultaneously says he's no influence over it while referring to it as 'my PAC'?
Edit: Oh and I loved Newt's come back that if Romney can't influence his PAC he may not be a great President.
All of the above.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Tonight Rick Perry called the government of Turkey 'Islamic terrorists', seemed to hint towards eventually bombing them and lumped them in with Iran and Syria. Despite this I think that was his best debate performance by a mile and he may do okay, though not well enough, in SC.
I don't know if that says more about Perry, his party or South Carolina :mellow:
It tells you a lot about US citizens' intellect.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2012, 12:12:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Tonight Rick Perry called the government of Turkey 'Islamic terrorists', seemed to hint towards eventually bombing them and lumped them in with Iran and Syria. Despite this I think that was his best debate performance by a mile and he may do okay, though not well enough, in SC.
I don't know if that says more about Perry, his party or South Carolina :mellow:
It tells you a lot about US citizens' intellect.
More like their education than their intellect.
Nah. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Tonight Rick Perry called the government of Turkey 'Islamic terrorists', seemed to hint towards eventually bombing them and lumped them in with Iran and Syria. Despite this I think that was his best debate performance by a mile and he may do okay, though not well enough, in SC.
I don't know if that says more about Perry, his party or South Carolina :mellow:
Good God, that man is dumb. I wonder if he knows that Turkey is inhabited by human beings and not large tasty birds.
Apparently he spent time in Turkey when in the air force in the 70s. That was his senior foreign policy advisor's spin on why it was a valid question (she also mentioned that the audience cheered his answer so he must have been right).
When I read that I imagined what it must be like to be Rick Perry's senior foreign policy advisor :(
I'm lucky to have (completely anti-AKP) Turkish company at the moment, and I had started comically lambasting Perry about this, until I watched the video -- the question was a ludicrous set-up, I don't know how you could respond differently to it during the S.C. Republican primary...
"Wait, wait, wait a minute...Turkey's a NATO ally....where did you get that 1400% increase in woman-beating? Isn't that due to better reporting? What exactly is 'Islamism'.... :hmm: :osama: ."
"I'd like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government." I saw that quoted on Twitter (Gingrich, maybe?) and I like it. :)
Yeah that was Gingrich. It was during the section when they were asked what the top rate of tax should be. It went from Romney suggesting 25% to Gingrich suggesting 15% (loudest cheer - I think they think that's attainable) to 0% from Ron Paul.
It was at that moment I realised how much I missed Herman Cain.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 03:03:52 AM
It was at that moment I realised how much I missed Herman Cain.
I miss H. Cain like I miss Jaron at his trolling peak...
Nick Griffin: awesome or awesomest man in Britain? Let's discuss.
It was the question his entire campaign was built around: 'NINE! NINE! NINE!' And we missed it :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 03:03:52 AM
Yeah that was Gingrich. It was during the section when they were asked what the top rate of tax should be. It went from Romney suggesting 25% to Gingrich suggesting 15% (loudest cheer - I think they think that's attainable) to 0% from Ron Paul.
It was at that moment I realised how much I missed Herman Cain.
0%? Perhaps we should allow the rich to legally murder people if they feel like it as well.
Were people really applauding?
Where do they find these people? Not in South Carolina, surely.
Newt Gingrich certainly put that nigger in his place, all askin' about food stamps an' such.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 04:05:13 AM
0%? Perhaps we should allow the rich to legally murder people if they feel like it as well.
His issue is Constitutional with regards to the federal income tax. I do not remember exactly what it was, that it had to apportioned in a certain way or something else technical about the sixteenth amendment. I do not really remember exactly. Since it is never actually going to happen (and if whatever his issue is becomes significant, I am pretty sure the Congress will just correct it) I never paid much attention.
Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
"I'd like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government." I saw that quoted on Twitter (Gingrich, maybe?) and I like it. :)
I would like to see us do either one as appropriate to the circumstances.
I wish Huntsman could get some traction.
Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
"I'd like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government." I saw that quoted on Twitter (Gingrich, maybe?) and I like it. :)
That's been the reactionary and Luddite call all along. Read about the US preparedness for the wars of 1812, 1861, and 1914 to see where that leads. I will concede that it is simplistic and likely very attractive to simpletons.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
I wish Huntsman could get some traction.
He'd just pick an unacceptable running mate and you'd end up voting for Obama anyway. :contract:
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
I wish Huntsman could get some traction.
Too late for that now. Maybe 2016.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2012, 12:16:55 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2012, 12:12:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Tonight Rick Perry called the government of Turkey 'Islamic terrorists', seemed to hint towards eventually bombing them and lumped them in with Iran and Syria. Despite this I think that was his best debate performance by a mile and he may do okay, though not well enough, in SC.
I don't know if that says more about Perry, his party or South Carolina :mellow:
It tells you a lot about US citizens' intellect.
More like their education than their intellect.
It also tells you why the GOP is so eager to cut school funding and fire teachers.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 04:05:13 AM
0%? Perhaps we should allow the rich to legally murder people if they feel like it as well.
His issue is Constitutional with regards to the federal income tax. I do not remember exactly what it was, that it had to apportioned in a certain way or something else technical about the sixteenth amendment. I do not really remember exactly. Since it is never actually going to happen (and if whatever his issue is becomes significant, I am pretty sure the Congress will just correct it) I never paid much attention.
Sounds kinda like one of those anti-tax conspiracies.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2012, 10:34:47 AM
That's been the reactionary and Luddite call all along. Read about the US preparedness for the wars of 1812, 1861, and 1914 to see where that leads. I will concede that it is simplistic and likely very attractive to simpletons.
Well we are in a tricky place. The economy would have a hard time doing either, raising taxes or massively cutting spending...and then you have the issues with unsustainable debt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2012, 06:26:12 AM
Newt Gingrich certainly put that nigger in his place, all askin' about food stamps an' such.
Is anyone here still believe when Republicans call the Obama "the Food Stamp President", or a "Welfare Thug" that it isn't some kind of Racist dog whistle politics. Santorum tried it and he fucked it up. He actually said "Black people".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
Sounds kinda like one of those anti-tax conspiracies.
Eh it probably is sorta like that.
It just shows how far the establishment parties have pushed me that I am going to vote for the crazy old guy.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
I wish Huntsman could get some traction.
Didn't he drop out yesterday?
Quote from: fahdiz on January 17, 2012, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
I wish Huntsman could get some traction.
Didn't he drop out yesterday?
If all the current candidates die, could he reenter the race?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 17, 2012, 11:47:21 AM
If all the current candidates die, could he reenter the race?
:shifty:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 17, 2012, 11:47:21 AM
If all the current candidates die, could he reenter the race?
Let's take it one step at a time.
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2012, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 17, 2012, 11:47:21 AM
If all the current candidates die, could he reenter the race?
Let's take it one step at a time.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviemail-online.co.uk%2Fimages%2Flarge%2Fkindhearts.jpg&hash=b2e0f50bf556b72254a377ddd519e6fcfdf5945d)
Zombie Dennis Price is rather good at this kind of thing.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 17, 2012, 11:15:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2012, 12:16:55 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2012, 12:12:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Tonight Rick Perry called the government of Turkey 'Islamic terrorists', seemed to hint towards eventually bombing them and lumped them in with Iran and Syria. Despite this I think that was his best debate performance by a mile and he may do okay, though not well enough, in SC.
I don't know if that says more about Perry, his party or South Carolina :mellow:
It tells you a lot about US citizens' intellect.
More like their education than their intellect.
It also tells you why the GOP is so eager to cut school funding and fire teachers.
'
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg fixed their sights Monday on a shared opponent: what they derided as New York State's education bureaucracy.Both men said the state could no longer tolerate a public school system they said was failing students, invoked the ideals of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and appeared ready for a fight.
At separate observances commemorating Dr. King's birthday, the governor and the mayor ratcheted up their attacks on teachers' unions and school administrators.
Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, declared that "we have to realize that our schools are not an employment program" and vowed to press for the speedy establishment of a statewide teacher evaluation system.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/nyregion/cuomo-and-bloomberg-on-attack-on-teacher-evaluations.html
Quote from: Phillip V on January 17, 2012, 01:55:22 PM
Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, declared that "we have to realize that our schools are not an employment program"
Not in any shape or form, no.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 11:33:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
Sounds kinda like one of those anti-tax conspiracies.
Eh it probably is sorta like that.
It just shows how far the establishment parties have pushed me that I am going to vote for the crazy old guy.
Never picked you for a guy who would vote for a person who isn't so keen on the Theory of Evolution.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 03:55:12 PM
Never picked you for a guy who would vote for a person who isn't so keen on the Theory of Evolution.
This is the Republican Primary Raz. None of them are keen on the Theory of Evolution. Voting on that issue would put me in quite a pickle.
I solve this problem by not voting in the Republican primary. :)
If you tried a little harder you could probably be a candidate since ill mental health doesn't seem to be a disqualifier :D
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
If you tried a little harder you could probably be a candidate since ill mental health doesn't seem to be a disqualifier :D
Well you have to be crazy to want to be President so I would say it is a requirement.
true, but the repubs have a better crazy quota. They're either crazy, womanizers, or texans. None of which is a good option :P
The Republican leadership Must know that 2012-16 is going to be really bad, they Do Not want to win. :ph34r:
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
If you tried a little harder you could probably be a candidate since ill mental health doesn't seem to be a disqualifier :D
It would help if I had cash. What is the cost to run in a Republican primary.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 06:51:03 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
If you tried a little harder you could probably be a candidate since ill mental health doesn't seem to be a disqualifier :D
It would help if I had cash. What is the cost to run in a Republican primary.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fce%2FAlvinGreene1.jpg&hash=fa4cccf8c72da6918a5e4c63b51e178f36c2ae14)
If this guy can run for US Senate, surely you're good enough to run for something or other. It cost him $10,400 to do so.
Quote from: Caliga on January 17, 2012, 07:43:11 PM
If this guy can run for US Senate, surely you're good enough to run for something or other. It cost him $10,400 to do so.
Screw that. If you manage to bum 10 grand off of strangers, use it to buy a car or something. And if you're using your own money, you should watch The Producers.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2012, 10:34:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2012, 02:50:55 AM
"I'd like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government." I saw that quoted on Twitter (Gingrich, maybe?) and I like it. :)
That's been the reactionary and Luddite call all along. Read about the US preparedness for the wars of 1812, 1861, and 1914 to see where that leads. I will concede that it is simplistic and likely very attractive to simpletons.
Well, you guys did win two out of three of those wars.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 17, 2012, 08:04:21 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 17, 2012, 07:43:11 PM
If this guy can run for US Senate, surely you're good enough to run for something or other. It cost him $10,400 to do so.
Screw that. If you manage to bum 10 grand off of strangers, use it to buy a car or something. And if you're using your own money, you should watch The Producers.
Yeah, if I had 10 grand I sure as hell wouldn't waste it on a vanity office run.
I might. Ten years in the House and my loans get discharged.
Oh, also, helping people and shit.
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2012, 04:33:54 PM
The Republican leadership Must know that 2012-16 is going to be really bad, they Do Not want to win. :ph34r:
Worse than 2008-2012 when it all fell apart?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
I might. Ten years in the House and my loans get discharged.
Oh, also, helping people and shit.
How would you help people by being a Rep? Would you give free tours on the side?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
I might. Ten years in the House and my loans get discharged.
Oh, also, helping people and shit.
That requires actually getting elected.
I'm ready to be South Carolina's first Hispanic representative.
On the back of a powerful debate performance and attacks on Romney, Gingrich may be taking back the lead on the eve of the South Carolina primary.
Santorum seems to be losing to Paul for third place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)
Much like he did with his cancerous wife, he is leaving them all behind.
Meanwhile Rick Perry is about to drop out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/rick-perry-to-drop-out-of-gop-race-report/article2307804/
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 09:34:16 AM
Meanwhile Rick Perry is about to drop out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/rick-perry-to-drop-out-of-gop-race-report/article2307804/
And he's endorsing Newt...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71657.html
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 09:43:03 AM
And he's endorsing Newt...
Well he hates Mitt so that was a given.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 09:43:50 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 09:43:03 AM
And he's endorsing Newt...
Well he hates Mitt so that was a given.
Gingrich was already gaining momentum. Will this give him the final burst to win South Carolina?
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 09:47:53 AM
Gingrich was already gaining momentum. Will this give him the final burst to win South Carolina?
I do not think it matters. If he really needs a huge surge to beat Mitt in the South he is going to be in trouble. The rest of the country is going Romney, barring some sort of huge swing, and they had to destroy him in the South to build that sort of swing.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 09:50:47 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 09:47:53 AM
Gingrich was already gaining momentum. Will this give him the final burst to win South Carolina?
I do not think it matters. If he really needs a huge surge to beat Mitt in the South he is going to be in trouble. The rest of the country is going Romney, barring some sort of huge swing, and they had to destroy him in the South to build that sort of swing.
It matters in that the longer the nomination race is, the more Romney has to become an extremist Republican.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 09:50:47 AM
I do not think it matters. If he really needs a huge surge to beat Mitt in the South he is going to be in trouble. The rest of the country is going Romney, barring some sort of huge swing, and they had to destroy him in the South to build that sort of swing.
Rasmussen had Romney only 3% ahead of Newt in their latest national polls. If Santorum were to drop out after SC and endorse Newt that would be helpful.
However national polls in a primary aren't really that helpful and after SC and Florida I think there's a number of Western states, which will be very good for Romney.
I feel sorry for Santorum, there's lots of reports that when Iowa actually certifies the result he will have won. Had that been reported a fortnight ago I think it would have made for a totally different story.
It is extraordinary how in every election Mitt has all of his opponents end up genuinely hating him :lol:
Edit: Time's pointed out that perhaps more importantly Perry could transfer his super-PAC and fundraisers to Newt. Which would be a very helpful.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 10:03:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 09:50:47 AM
I do not think it matters. If he really needs a huge surge to beat Mitt in the South he is going to be in trouble. The rest of the country is going Romney, barring some sort of huge swing, and they had to destroy him in the South to build that sort of swing.
Rasmussen had Romney only 3% ahead of Newt in their latest national polls. If Santorum were to drop out after SC and endorse Newt that would be helpful.
However national polls in a primary aren't really that helpful and after SC and Florida I think there's a number of Western states, which will be very good for Romney.
I feel sorry for Santorum, there's lots of reports that when Iowa actually certifies the result he will have won. Had that been reported a fortnight ago I think it would have made for a totally different story.
It is extraordinary how in every election Mitt has all of his opponents end up genuinely hating him :lol:
Who would NOT hate the handsome, rich, preppy guy! :D
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 09:34:16 AM
Much like he did with his cancerous wife, he is leaving them all behind.
:XD:
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
Kaboom!
Lol. That's going to go over well with the Religious Right!
Also: :nelson:, Rick Perry.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 11:44:47 AM
Lol. That's going to go over well with the Religious Right!
I think it's striking that Perry's endorsement mentioned forgiveness and redemption. I expect Gingrich to attack the media in a big way during the debate tonight. It'll be interesting to see which the religious right prefers.
South Carolina's living up to its reputation. The leaflet about Santorum's wife is probably the nastiest attack I've seen.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 18, 2012, 03:43:04 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
I might. Ten years in the House and my loans get discharged.
Oh, also, helping people and shit.
That requires actually getting elected.
Many, many, more people would be helped by Ide not getting elected.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
The leaflet about Santorum's wife is probably the nastiest attack I've seen.
What's the skinny?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:56:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
The leaflet about Santorum's wife is probably the nastiest attack I've seen.
What's the skinny?
Someone's done a leaflet that was left on cars at a big pro-life event. As well as challenging Santorum's pro-life record (he's endorsed pro-choice Republican candidates and in 1990 said he didn't make an issue of abortion). In addition it also goes on about a story that his wife dated a doctor (in the 80s!) who performed abortions, says they split up because she wanted children while he wanted to kill them but this hadn't bothered her before and so on.
Just not very pleasant stuff at all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:56:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
The leaflet about Santorum's wife is probably the nastiest attack I've seen.
What's the skinny?
In addition it also goes on about a story that his wife dated a doctor (in the 80s!) who performed abortions, says they split up because she wanted children while he wanted to kill them but this hadn't bothered her before and so on.
Just not very pleasant stuff at all.
Agree, not very pleasant stuff, but I don't see how that part reflects on Santorum at all. It has nothing to do with him personally.
My fairly superficial impression on the Republican candidates:
Romney - kind of slimy, wishy washy, out-of-touch super rich guy.
Newt - full of himself, vile.
Santorum - seems like a decent guy who genuinely holds positions I don't agree with.
In terms of policy, I think Romney would probably be the best Republican candidate from my point of view, while Santorum's probably the guy I could respect the most. Either one would be fine, though I'd vote for Obama were I an American voter.
Newt, however, seems like he would be terrible.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
My fairly superficial impression on the Republican candidates:
Romney - kind of slimy, wishy washy, out-of-touch super rich guy.
Newt - full of himself, vile.
Santorum - seems like a decent guy who genuinely holds positions I don't agree with.
In terms of policy, I think Romney would probably be the best Republican candidate from my point of view, while Santorum's probably the guy I could respect the most. Either one would be fine, though I'd vote for Obama were I an American voter.
Newt, however, seems like he would be terrible.
What about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
Ron Paul loses head to head against any of them. He's just not Republican enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
What about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's completely unelectable :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PMWhat about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's good on civil liberties and foreign policy but crazy on economics. Too big a risk to vote for, I'd say. If he did get elected I'd be worried because the range of what he could do goes all the way from really terrible to really good, and I'd tend to fret about the potential for really terrible. He seems like a decent guy on a personal level, for what that's worth.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
Romney - kind of slimy
This is from Doggate, or other things too?
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:51:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PMWhat about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's good on civil liberties and foreign policy but crazy on economics. Too big a risk to vote for, I'd say. If he did get elected I'd be worried because the range of what he could do goes all the way from really terrible to really good, and I'd tend to fret about the potential for really terrible. He seems like a decent guy on a personal level, for what that's worth.
careful now, Raz is gonna stalk you for a while for not harshly condemning Paul enough... :(
Three latest polls now showing Gingrich leading South Carolina.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html)
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
What about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's completely unelectable :mellow:
Also insane. He's been called "Principled", but rather I think he's simply a monomaniac. Paul only wants a few things. The end of Income tax, Fiat money and the Federal reserve. Everything else is secondary. I think he's willing to say and do anything to get those things done. If it means allying with racists and Birchers, he'll do it. If it means patronizing hipsters and potheads, he'll do it. It doesn't matter what it takes. I think that makes him the most dangerous person out there. Some politicians are willing to say or do anything to advance themselves. Paul is willing to say and do anything achieve his radical and revolutionary goal.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2012, 12:54:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:51:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PMWhat about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's good on civil liberties and foreign policy but crazy on economics. Too big a risk to vote for, I'd say. If he did get elected I'd be worried because the range of what he could do goes all the way from really terrible to really good, and I'd tend to fret about the potential for really terrible. He seems like a decent guy on a personal level, for what that's worth.
careful now, Raz is gonna stalk you for a while for not harshly condemning Paul enough... :(
I stalk everyone here.
Latest news from Iowa: Romney won the preliminary count, Santorum won the final one, so Iowa GOP decided to call it a tie. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2012, 01:20:22 PM
Latest news from Iowa: Romney won the preliminary count, Santorum won the final one, so Iowa GOP decided to call it a tie. :lol:
It doesn't matter what they call it. Iowa's dirty little secret is that the caucus results have no real meaning.
Iowa will go for Obama anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
Romney - kind of slimy
This is from Doggate, or other things too?
More of a general aggregate, Doggate doesn't really factor into it. I think the thing that solidified it was the "you know... I've been worried about pink slips a few times in my life too" bit. Not necessarily particularly egregious on its own, but a millionaire son of a millionaire (who
thinks his effective tax is around 15% and just may release his tax records to show that) trying to claim fears of unemployment as his own for political gain - it just rang way too hollow.
I mean, I understand the political logic behind it, but it was just terrible. I don't think he'll be a terrible president, necessarily, but the man strikes me as slimy.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
What about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's completely unelectable :mellow:
Sort of the sad part is he gets most attacked in these primaries for the good stuff, the foreign policy stuff, and everybody seems to be cool with the bad stuff.
I naturally disagree with Raz that he is a one issue guy and completely obsessed with ending income tax.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:51:27 PM
He's good on civil liberties and foreign policy but crazy on economics. Too big a risk to vote for, I'd say. If he did get elected I'd be worried because the range of what he could do goes all the way from really terrible to really good, and I'd tend to fret about the potential for really terrible. He seems like a decent guy on a personal level, for what that's worth.
Except the President does have tremendous powers in law enforcement and foreign policy but is limited in his ability to override congress on things like money supply and tax rates.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
My fairly superficial impression on the Republican candidates:
Romney - kind of slimy, wishy washy, out-of-touch super rich guy.
Newt - full of himself, vile.
Santorum - seems like a decent guy who genuinely holds positions I don't agree with.
In terms of policy, I think Romney would probably be the best Republican candidate from my point of view, while Santorum's probably the guy I could respect the most. Either one would be fine, though I'd vote for Obama were I an American voter.
Newt, however, seems like he would be terrible.
I think Santorum's positions make him a non-decent guy.
If Iowa can't handle a primary vote, or caucus, maybe the state shouldn't go first. Seems that caucus is a pretty messy, cumbersome event to get a solid vote count anyway.
Ron Paul can't be president. You won't know if orders come from the actual C-in-C or from someone else.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:32:20 PMExcept the President does have tremendous powers in law enforcement and foreign policy but is limited in his ability to override congress on things like money supply and tax rates.
That's a good point.
Still, I'd vote for Obama. He strikes me as a sensible adult, trying to get shit done and succeeding more times than not (especially given the current economic and political climate).
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:30:39 PM
Sort of the sad part is he gets most attacked in these primaries for the good stuff, the foreign policy stuff, and everybody seems to be cool with the bad stuff.
I'm not sure these folks know enough about economics to be able to see that it *is* "bad stuff".
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 01:33:23 PMI think Santorum's positions make him a non-decent guy.
When I said decent, I meant as separate from his positions. That said, it's perfectly legitimate to not make that separation.
What do you think of Newt and Mitt?
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 01:35:28 PM
Ron Paul can't be president. You won't know if orders come from the actual C-in-C or from someone else.
:lmfao:
Quote from: KRonn on January 19, 2012, 01:34:57 PM
If Iowa can't handle a primary vote, or caucus, maybe the state shouldn't go first. Seems that caucus is a pretty messy, cumbersome event to get a solid vote count anyway.
They shouldn't. It's tradition, and they're dead set on maintaining that tradition.
It wasn't any big deal years ago, but then the media started to pay way too much attention to the outcome.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
OK, I know for whom I must vote on Saturday.
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 01:33:23 PM
I think Santorum's positions make him a non-decent guy.
Correct. At a certain point, political positions demand the label of evil.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 01:33:23 PM
I think Santorum's positions make him a non-decent guy.
Correct. At a certain point, political positions demand the label of evil.
I guess I've lost track of them. What evil positions does Santorum hold?
(Evil enough to turn garbon against him, no less :ph34r:)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
OK, I know for whom I must vote on Saturday.
You're not saying if that is swaying you positively or negatively. :P
For what it's worth, I've seen that so many times in libertarian 'conservative' types they espouse policies about personal responsibility and limited government, and yet when push comes to shove the only loyalty they demonstrate in their private lives is to whatever their selfish motivation happens to be at that moment.
In short narcissistic, egotistical 'takers'.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 01:33:23 PM
I think Santorum's positions make him a non-decent guy.
Correct. At a certain point, political positions demand the label of evil.
I guess I've lost track of them. What evil positions does Santorum hold?
(Evil enough to turn garbon against him, no less :ph34r:)
Indeed.
Pro-life, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-religion--and not just a little bit.
Quote from: mongers on January 19, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
OK, I know for whom I must vote on Saturday.
You're not saying if that is swaying you positively or negatively. :P
Because I'm not sure which. :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 01:33:23 PM
I think Santorum's positions make him a non-decent guy.
Correct. At a certain point, political positions demand the label of evil.
I guess I've lost track of them. What evil positions does Santorum hold?
(Evil enough to turn garbon against him, no less :ph34r:)
QuoteDuring an interview with the Associated press in 2003, Santorum was asked his views on the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. Santorum said the priests were engaged in "a basic homosexual relationship", and remarked, "I have a problem with homosexual acts". He argued that the extended right to privacy ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut does not exist in the United States Constitution and that laws should exist against polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family". Santorum stated that such actions were harmful to society, observing, "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality"
QuoteSantorum has stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" is part of the Constitution; he has been critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed that right, and overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives to married couples. He has described contraception as "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Oh, yeah, I forgot he wanted to over turn Griswold too. That makes him basically insane.
The man would take away the right to facials if he could, Jacob. Do you understand?
What's wrong with having three coiti in your life if you want three kids?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
OK, I know for whom I must vote on Saturday.
You've gone GOP? :huh:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2012, 03:58:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
OK, I know for whom I must vote on Saturday.
You've gone GOP? :huh:
SC has an open primary. I'm participating in order to sabotage it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2012, 03:58:49 PM
You've gone GOP? :huh:
Open primary. He's trying to game it.
He would heckle a speech if he could get the time off.
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
QuoteHe has described contraception as "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Actually it is a license to not have to do those things. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for 'Open Marriage'
'In an interview to be broadcast Thursday night, a former wife of Newt Gingrich says he asked for an "open marriage" to continue his affair with the woman who is his current wife.
...
"He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista." Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her to "share" him. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.'
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/former-gingrich-wife-says-he-asked-for-open-marriage/)
OK, I know for whom I must vote on Saturday.
You sure? Who.
There are still two days left where anything can happen, such as the debate tonight and further "scandal".
Oh, sure, I'll make a final decision tomorrow.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:12:45 PM
Oh, sure, I'll make a final decision tomorrow.
So, who are you voting for Cain or Gingerich?
Well, I don't think voting for Cain would get me anywhere. :P
As I mentioned earlier, I have two sometimes competing goals--to vote for an unelectable candidate, and to vote for whoever can do the most damage to the frontrunner and continue the conflict. The first goal doesn't look like it can be satisfied--Romney and Gingrich have some chance of being elected--but since the frontrunner is Romney, I will probably vote for Gingrich unless he utterly collapses in the next 24 hours, which I feel is very unlikely.
With the scandal stuff being opened up on him, all the better, since in subsequent primaries he may suffer, as he has made Romney suffer. They will cut each others' throats and Obama will sail to victory on a sea of their blood. It'll be great.
Of course, ideally, Santorum or Paul would be the contender; I'd love to help them in the primary, because they are both completely unelectable.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:22:45 PM
Well, I don't think voting for Cain would get me anywhere. :P
Well, I suggested Cain on the grounds that "Americans for a better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" is campaigning for Cain even having Steven Colbert play Cain in it's ads.
Quote from: mongers on January 19, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
For what it's worth, I've seen that so many times in libertarian 'conservative' types they espouse policies about personal responsibility and limited government, and yet when push comes to shove the only loyalty they demonstrate in their private lives is to whatever their selfish motivation happens to be at that moment.
In short narcissistic, egotistical 'takers'.
Newt is anything but a "libertartian 'conservative' type."
Quote from: Habbaku on January 19, 2012, 05:52:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 19, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
For what it's worth, I've seen that so many times in libertarian 'conservative' types they espouse policies about personal responsibility and limited government, and yet when push comes to shove the only loyalty they demonstrate in their private lives is to whatever their selfish motivation happens to be at that moment.
In short narcissistic, egotistical 'takers'.
Newt is anything but a "libertartian 'conservative' type."
Sorry, I was using both as terms of abuse. ;)
:homestar:
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:30:39 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
What about Ron Paul? The guy has come in second in the last two runs.
He's completely unelectable :mellow:
Sort of the sad part is he gets most attacked in these primaries for the good stuff, the foreign policy stuff, and everybody seems to be cool with the bad stuff.
I naturally disagree with Raz that he is a one issue guy and completely obsessed with ending income tax.
Well of course you do, you are going to vote for the bastard. What is his foreign policy anyway? I thought it could be summed up as "Neo-Isolationism".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
What is his foreign policy anyway? I thought it could be summed up as "Neo-Isolationism".
He's opposed to the neoconservative-style "spread democracy" use of our armed forces.
Is Gingrich flirting with the gold standard? http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/gingrich_gold_standard/
And here I thought I couldn't have a lower opinion of the man.
Romney leads Obama in 5 of 6 swing states
'Romney was tested against Obama in six states: Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. Romney led in all but New Mexico, where the race was an exact tie.
Romney bested the president in Florida by 5 points, in Ohio by 7 points, in Nevada by 11 points, in Virginia by 3 points and in Wisconsin by a mere 1 percentage point.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 07:06:11 PM
Romney bested the president in Florida by 5 points, in Ohio by 7 points, in Nevada by 11 points, in Virginia by 3 points and in Wisconsin by a mere 1 percentage point.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html)
Color me extremely skeptical of the bolded bit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2012, 07:27:03 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 07:06:11 PM
Romney bested the president in Florida by 5 points, in Ohio by 7 points, in Nevada by 11 points, in Virginia by 3 points and in Wisconsin by a mere 1 percentage point.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html)
Color me extremely skeptical of the bolded bit.
It's a poll 10 months out. Who cares?
Might as well consider Nevada a home-state advantage for Mormon Mitt.
Oh Gingrich is brilliant and evil. During the debate he's released his tax returns and put them online :lol:
After Romney's cowardice on the open marriage thing I don't know that he expected that.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 06:10:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
What is his foreign policy anyway? I thought it could be summed up as "Neo-Isolationism".
He's opposed to the neoconservative-style "spread democracy" use of our armed forces.
It's a little more then just that, Fahdiz. Such as closing the US bases in Europe, Korea and Japan. Pretty much ending all foreign aid, end sanctions against Iran. Also the ending US involvement in the UN and NATO. By themselves, one or two of his foreign policy might be defensible. Together we see an ideology of an isolationist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 08:46:48 PM
Oh Gingrich is brilliant and evil. During the debate he's released his tax returns and put them online :lol:
I think that sums up my opinion of the man.
Also I found out that Paul would not have launched the operation to kill Bin Laden. In world where Paul was President Bin Laden would still be alive (well likely to be alive. He could have gotten sick or something).
Oh God. I am loving Santorum's attacks on Newt. 'Grandiosity has never been a problem for Newt...That is not a cogent thought...An idea a minute. No discipline.' And then attacks him on ethics. Wonderful stuff and I think fiercely effective.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 08:55:47 PM
Oh God. I am loving Santorum's attacks on Newt. 'Grandiosity has never been a problem for Newt...That is not a cogent thought...An idea a minute. No discipline.' And then attacks him on ethics. Wonderful stuff and I think fiercely effective.
Hehe... Santorum is going for broke, to try and gain some ground. But Gingrich has been gaining in S. Carolina, the reports I've seen the last couple of days.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 08:46:48 PM
Oh Gingrich is brilliant and evil. During the debate he's released his tax returns and put them online :lol:
After Romney's cowardice on the open marriage thing I don't know that he expected that.
I think Gingrich has gotten back more to his ideas and the ways that gained ground from him earlier, and moved away from the attacks which I were probably back firing on him some. That has to have helped him.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 06:10:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
What is his foreign policy anyway? I thought it could be summed up as "Neo-Isolationism".
He's opposed to the neoconservative-style "spread democracy" use of our armed forces.
I know. What a fucking asshole. The one God damned thing Republicans are good for, and he's not even good for that.
Quote from: KRonn on January 19, 2012, 09:13:43 PM
I think Gingrich has gotten back more to his ideas and the ways that gained ground from him earlier, and moved away from the attacks which I were probably back firing on him some. That has to have helped him.
I don't know. His polling's improved and Romney's has declined since he went on the attack (with the help of everyone else).
Quote from: Phillip V on January 19, 2012, 07:06:11 PM
Romney leads Obama in 5 of 6 swing states
'Romney was tested against Obama in six states: Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. Romney led in all but New Mexico, where the race was an exact tie.
Romney bested the president in Florida by 5 points, in Ohio by 7 points, in Nevada by 11 points, in Virginia by 3 points and in Wisconsin by a mere 1 percentage point.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gop-poll-romney-leads-obama-in-of-swing-states-111368.html)
No rich white dude can beat this man, sorry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fimagebuzz%2Fweb03%2F2009%2F12%2F18%2F14%2Fobamas-fist-bump-25421-1261163294-71.jpg&hash=32d67b714fb5445b7f0fc79fb0add7ec934c4d63)
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2012, 10:28:42 PM
No rich white dude can beat this man, sorry:
That's an odd stance. Not too long ago the opinion was that it was
hard impossible to win the white house as an african-american and now it is impossible to derail the black guy who failed deliver on promised hope and change?
Yup.
Odd.
I suspect there are a few rich white dudes who could beat Obama, but none of them are Republican candidates. Is Paul Krugman rich? I'd vote for him.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:23:26 PM
Is Paul Krugman rich? I'd vote for him.
I think Jon Corzine is the fellow you're looking for. ;)
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
Quote from: citizen k on January 20, 2012, 12:38:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:23:26 PM
Is Paul Krugman rich? I'd vote for him.
I think Jon Corzine is the fellow you're looking for. ;)
I guess he's okay. I mean, he's a Democrat.
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
:cheers:
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
Neat.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 01:24:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
Neat.
It's really one of the few reasonable responses to Gingrich that are available.
Do you feel that this opinion is widespread throughout the independent/center of the GOP?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 01:35:53 AM
Do you feel that this opinion is widespread throughout the independent/center of the GOP?
Yes.
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
He really is. I still like Santorum and Paul, but I think Gingrich really is just vile.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 03:13:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
He really is. I still like Santorum and Paul, but I think Gingrich really is just vile.
Sheilbh: Tory PSYOPS. :wacko:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 03:44:37 AM
Sheilbh: Tory PSYOPS. :wacko:
Don't compare me with Hans <_<
Five polls for SC released yesterday ad follows:
Mittens: +10
Mittens: +7
Gringo: +2
Gringo: +3
Gringo: +7
Margin of error around 4. Hmm.
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2012, 05:34:46 AM
Five polls for SC released yesterday ad follows:
Mittens: +10
Mittens: +7
Gringo: +2
Gringo: +3
Gringo: +7
Margin of error around 4. Hmm.
What are you, the Yi Institute on Public Policy?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2012, 05:34:46 AM
Five polls for SC released yesterday ad follows:
Mittens: +10
Mittens: +7
Gringo: +2
Gringo: +3
Gringo: +7
Margin of error around 4. Hmm.
What are you, the Yi Institute on Public Policy?
Yes: +5
No: +2
Maybe: +7
Don't know/what the fuck are you on about: +23
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2012, 06:33:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2012, 05:34:46 AM
Five polls for SC released yesterday ad follows:
Mittens: +10
Mittens: +7
Gringo: +2
Gringo: +3
Gringo: +7
Margin of error around 4. Hmm.
What are you, the Yi Institute on Public Policy?
Yes: +5
No: +2
Maybe: +7
Don't know/what the fuck are you on about: +23
I was referring to the Dennis Miller-esque obscurely hip nicknames, but the smoky numbers work, too.
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2012, 05:34:46 AM
Five polls for SC released yesterday ad follows:
Mittens: +10
Mittens: +7
Gringo: +2
Gringo: +3
Gringo: +7
Margin of error around 4. Hmm.
This is one of the pet peeves of mine. Margin of error is just a sample error. It doesn't account for the error in picking or normalizing the sample, and there are a lot of polling agencies who are terrible at it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 03:13:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
He really is. I still like Santorum and Paul, but I think Gingrich really is just vile.
Oh, you little revolutionary you. You just can't help but loving extremists of all flavours, can you?
With a possible Gingrich upset tomorrow, the Romney campaign may very well get the long battle for the nomination that they had previously prepared for.
Florida, a state Romney only lost by 5 points in 2008, seems solid for him, but a Gingrich win in South Carolina could make it a close call. However, it is winner-take-all: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html
As for February, the contests are Romney-friendly (Michigan, Nevada, Maine, etc.) and should allow him good wins to prepare for Super Tuesday in March. Does that mean the other candidates will fade away in February? No. Super Pac's will keep them very much alive.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2012GOPmap.png&hash=4551095aee64130ba74b5662f9e63eaa8bfcaa30)
I just really wish TEH MEDIA would stop giving Newt so much easy ammunition. Like last night's debate. Way to go, fellas.
Yeah, throwing John King to Newt was just making it too easy for him (maybe that was the plan? :ph34r:) John King always struck me as especially dim even by the very dim standards of cable news networks.
If Gingrich wins tomorrow, we can say that there are four candidates who have each achieved quite well so far. Are there any comparable nominative races from the past?
Heh.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 20, 2012, 03:39:37 PM
Are there any comparable nominative races from the past?
Sure there are.
1988: Bob Dole kicked in the sitting Vice President's teeth in at Iowa with Pat Robertson placing 2nd, but then Poppy broke Reagan's Commandment and edged him out in New Hampshire.
The General never got off the ground. :Embarrass:
The Democrats in 1988 were even more spread out: Hart was the presumptive winner before the primaries until his dick got him, Biden forgot his annotated bibliography once, Gephardt won Iowa, Dukakis won New Hampshire.
More:
QuoteIn the Super Tuesday races, Dukakis won six primaries, Gore five, Jackson five and Gephardt one, with Gore and Jackson splitting the southern states. The next week, Simon won Illinois. 1988 remains the race with the most candidates winning primaries since the McGovern reforms of 1971. Dukakis eventually emerged as the winner, with Gore's effort to paint Dukakis as too liberal for the general election being unsuccessful and causing him to withdraw.
Quote from: Neil on January 20, 2012, 09:01:57 AM
Oh, you little revolutionary you. You just can't help but loving extremists of all flavours, can you?
My favourite candidate was Huntsman and I've no real time for Bachmann. But I judge candidates a lot on their character. I think policy's somewhat secondary, especially at this point.
QuoteWith a possible Gingrich upset tomorrow, the Romney campaign may very well get the long battle for the nomination that they had previously prepared for.
Florida, a state Romney only lost by 5 points in 2008, seems solid for him, but a Gingrich win in South Carolina could make it a close call. However, it is winner-take-all: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html
I think it'll be problematic for Romney to go from pseudo-incumbency to just the guy who won New Hampshire (and did better in Iowa, and probably SC too, four years ago). And Romney's national numbers (which are irrelevant) are 'collapsing' according to Gallup's director.
He's still the most likely to win, but I'd note that this past week has really eroded Romney's central selling point. The entire point of his campaign is that he's 'electable'. I think that's in doubt now and if he's not electable then what's the point of Romney? It is mind-boggling for me that Romney's been running for President for the best part of a decade and doesn't seem to have thought through an answer to Bain or his tax status. I still think he's just a weak, weak candidate.
If this goes to the convention (which, God willing, it will) then you could end up with Paul. Paul's only way to get nominated is through the convention. According to Republicans at state level lots of Romney and Gingrich delegates are enthusiastic Paul supporters who've volunteered and got themselves chosen as delegates. They're only tied to the Romney or Gingrich in the first round of voting.
This election is now between a candidate who makes John Kerry look like a rock-ribbed, horny-handed son of toil; a candidate who wants to bring back child labour; a candidate who has listed various things that aren't 'free for alls' including science, the internet and the bedroom; and a candidate who wants to end the Fed. I'm no longer convinced that the last guys the craziest nominee for Republicans to make.
Edit: Incidentally I think Romney made two dangerous concessions last night. He referred to 'Romneycare' which he's not done before and he promised several years worth of tax returns.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
He's still the most likely to win, but I'd note that this past week has really eroded Romney's central selling point. The entire point of his campaign is that he's 'electable'. I think that's in doubt now and if he's not electable then what's the point of Romney?
Probably a ridiculous statement.
And Romney is certainly less beige than Kerry - so I think the comparison is moot unless being a white man from Massachusetts is so rare as to beggar instant comparisons.
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
Shelf: Romney's "electability" is a function of the results of his head to head polls with Obama vs. the other candidates' results in similar head to head polls.
If a candidate had to win primaries to be considered electable it wouldn't be much of an asset, now would it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
Mormons aren't Christian? I'm sure they will be disappointed to hear that.
Quote from: sbr on January 20, 2012, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
Mormons aren't Christian? I'm sure they will be disappointed to hear that.
Not really. That's always been a controversy as Mormons identify as Christians but most Christians don't consider them to be.
Quote from: sbr on January 20, 2012, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
Mormons aren't Christian? I'm sure they will be disappointed to hear that.
Well, they don't believe that belief in Jesus Christ will lead to personal salvation and heaven. They think they get to become gods of their own planet.
Not this goddamn shit again... :frusty:
No Masons are Christians. All Mormons are Masons. Therefore, no Mormons are Christians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2012, 10:10:24 PMShelf: Romney's "electability" is a function of the results of his head to head polls with Obama vs. the other candidates' results in similar head to head polls.
No it's not. Romney's electability is a message and an argument made by the campaign and his supporters. It's broadly backed and spread by neutrals. The polls are, to some extent, evidence but that's all.
QuoteIf a candidate had to win primaries to be considered electable it wouldn't be much of an asset, now would it?
No. I don't understand your point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination. It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.
Electability is shorthand for a candidate's chances in the general Shelf.
If electability meant the chances of winning the primary then candidates would tell primary voters "you should vote for me because you're more likely to vote for me." It's circular, see?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2012, 10:55:08 PM
Electability is shorthand for a candidate's chances in the general Shelf.
If electability meant the chances of winning the primary then candidates would tell primary voters "you should vote for me because you're more likely to vote for me." It's circular, see?
Clearly, but I've not said electability's anything to do with chances of winning the primary. It's a core part of Romney's argument why he should win the primary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 11:02:40 PM
Clearly, but I've not said electability's anything to do with chances of winning the primary. It's a core part of Romney's argument why he should win the primary.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying Newt's rise in South Carolina undermines Mitt's electability argument.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2012, 11:04:48 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying Newt's rise in South Carolina undermines Mitt's electability argument.
No. I think the past week has. The combination of bad debate performances, strong attacks on his record (especially Santorum on Romneycare), Bain and his tax returns. His response to this has also been weak, you can have a torrid time and come out of it well, but Romney hasn't. I don't think he looks at all like a strong candidate. I think he looks vulnerable - this was a point Perry and Newt both made.
Edit: So Newt's rise doesn't undermine Mitt, but the factors behind it does.
Meh. All will be forgotten in a month or two from now. There were similar protestations from people when Obama was upset by Clinton in New Hampshire and then roundly defeated be her in Pennsylvania and Ohio; that he would never get the blue-collar white voters.
Then again, the media decided to attribute Clinton's rebound to her tears. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 10:42:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination. It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.
I thought Mormons were Protestants. They're non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, and they arose as a sect within a Christian community, after the Reformation. Maybe my definition of Protestant sucks.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:00:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 10:42:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination. It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.
I thought Mormons were Protestants. They're non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, and they arose as a sect within a Christian community, after the Reformation. Maybe my definition of Protestant sucks.
Your definition of protestant sucks.
Mormons, by utterly rejecting anything Luther, Calvin, or Knox had to say, are their own form or
sui generis] unique religion. The better argument is whether or not Mormons qualify as Christian at all.
(for what little it is worth I think that since they see Christ as the son of God they qualify, but I can see why others differ. Their theology is pretty strange)
I don't regard them as Christians for the same reason that Catholics aren't Jews. If you write your own whole new book, you're something else entirely.
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2012, 01:04:56 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:00:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 10:42:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something. :pope:
I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination. It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.
I thought Mormons were Protestants. They're non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, and they arose as a sect within a Christian community, after the Reformation. Maybe my definition of Protestant sucks.
Your definition of protestant sucks.
Mormons, by utterly rejecting anything Luther, Calvin, or Knox had to say, are their own form or sui generis] unique religion. The better argument is whether or not Mormons qualify as Christian at all.
(for what little it is worth I think that since they see Christ as the son of God they qualify, but I can see why others differ. Their theology is pretty strange)
Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians? Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:09:49 AM
Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians? Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?
Anglicans = Episcopalians
But, if you want to understand what Mormons actually "belive" watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E
even if only a small part of this is true this is so full of WTF that christians don't think they are christians.
N.B. I am obviously an atheist and think this is silly shit, but this is a case of faithheads bashing faithheads. This is why his Mormonism is a problem for those who actually take their Christianity seriously.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 21, 2012, 12:25:09 AM
Meh. All will be forgotten in a month or two from now. There were similar protestations from people when Obama was upset by Clinton in New Hampshire and then roundly defeated be her in Pennsylvania and Ohio; that he would never get the blue-collar white voters.
But Obama does struggle with white working class voters. He's very weak with that group. For me that's the appeal of a Republican candidate like Huckabee or Santorum, because I think they will better connect with that core Republican vote than Romney. This is something David Brooks has written about and I broadly agree.
But that's not my argument at all. I'm saying that if Romney doesn't look like a strong candidate then he needs to rejig his argument for why people should vote for him. The analogy from 2008 is I think Clinton after Iowa. Her campaign had to a large extent been based on a sense of incumbency (like Romney) and inevitability (like Romney) after Iowa that shifted and, I think, was destroyed after Super Tuesday. Clinton had to change the focus of her campaign and I think she did so very successfully.
If Romney begins to look like a weak candidate then he needs to give Republicans another, better reason to vote for him.
Personally I'd suggest that he would perhaps be a bit better if he behaved like less of an incumbent. I think he should try and re-cast himself as a ideas-oriented businessman. Which he does with his rhetoric, but he campaigns and acts like a sitting VP. In 92 Clinton had that big academic seminar I think on social security or welfare. But it played up to all of Clinton's wonky, New Democrat strengths. I'd say Romney should do things like that, and try and loosen up a bit. He can talk about his private sector background all he wants but it doesn't connect with the way he looks and acts. But it could be too late for that and given Romney's reputation for flexibility it may not work anyway.
QuoteDoesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians? Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?
Yep. In their way. Other Christians don't see Mormons as Christians. Which I think is fair. They've got a second series of revelations 1800 years after the start of Christianity. It seems like considering the Bahai a brance of Islam. I think it says more about Mormon desire for integration I suppose. Which is sad in its way. I hope to live to see the Mormon pride movement.
Quote from: Viking on January 21, 2012, 01:23:04 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:09:49 AM
Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians? Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?
Anglicans = Episcopalians
Indeed, it's why I stuck 'em together. :P
QuoteBut, if you want to understand what Mormons actually "belive" watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E
even if only a small part of this is true this is so full of WTF that christians don't think they are christians.
N.B. I am obviously an atheist and think this is silly shit, but this is a case of faithheads bashing faithheads. This is why his Mormonism is a problem for those who actually take their Christianity seriously.
Yeah, I had heard of some of that. I don't think it makes them non-Christian--there's clearly a worship of Jesus Christ, even if he's a Body Thetan (which is not really
that different than Catholic dogma)--although I suppose the existence of a superceding, recent holy book probably does defeat my categorization of them as Protestants.
Also, Mormon theology is fun. I have a question though: do the space gods of Kolob have a different sex-determination system than humans? Folowup: if not, why are there like three chicks for every dude? And does that not sound way awesome? That last question was rhetorical.
Quote from: SheilbhYep. In their way. Other Christians don't see Mormons as Christians. Which I think is fair. They've got a second series of revelations 1800 years after the start of Christianity. It seems like considering the Bahai a brance of Islam. I think it says more about Mormon desire for integration I suppose. Which is sad in its way. I hope to live to see the Mormon pride movement.
In fairness, though, Baha'i doesn't claim to be a sect of Islam. Mormons do claim to be Christians. In such matters, I'm generally willing, unless it's a clear abuse of the definition, to find such assertions dispositive. And like I said, it's not clearly abusive. Jesus is totally in there, along with the Hebrew God. Hanging out in space. At least it avoids that trinity stuff.
But I'll back off on the "Protestant." That may be a bridge too far.
QuoteTo describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian church to any audience spreads a misconception that there is something other than Jesus Christ at the heart of the Mormon faith.
For Latter-day Saints, Jesus Christ is the Savior of all people, the divine Son of God. He is the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament, who taught about faith and about love for God and mankind. Jesus Christ — not Moses, Paul or Joseph Smith — is the object of Mormons' devotion and worship. As the Prophet Joseph Smith himself taught, "The fundamental principles of our religion are ... concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."
This is indeed the daily reality for Latter-day Saints. Jesus Christ is perpetually front and center in the lives of practicing members of the faith. Whenever Mormons pray to God, for instance, they do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Baptism by immersion, according to the symbolism of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, marks a person's entrance into the faith. The sacrament (what other Christian traditions call communion) is administered weekly in Sunday services for members to reflect on the mercy of Jesus Christ. When Latter-day Saints seek forgiveness, they do so through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. They serve the poor and needy and give of their time and money to numerous humanitarian aid efforts in order to follow Christ's teachings. Images of Christ adorn the faith's meetinghouses and temples. Church leaders and members testify of Jesus Christ's reality and divinity. The Son of God appears in the Church's official name: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." While some outsiders know Latter-day Saints as Mormons, members know themselves as part of Christ's Church.
At their best, Latter-day Saints' behavior, speech, thoughts and identity all reflect Christ and His teachings. If you ask a member what it means to belong to the Church, he or she will tell you that most fundamentally it means to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world and to follow Him.
For Latter-day Saints, being a Christian means being a disciple of Jesus Christ, loving and worshiping Him above all. It means prizing Christ and centering one's life on His teachings from the New Testament. It means striving to live the kind of life that Christ commanded, honoring Him in word and deed. This is the meaning of a Christian, and there is no doubt that Latter-day Saints — who pattern their lives after all of these things — belong to Christ's fold.
They sound pretty damn Christian to me.
QuoteBut I'll back off on the "Protestant." That may be a bridge too far.
I dunno, Protestant is a pretty amazingly general term, isn't it? Doesn't it pretty much describe any Christian sect that came about in a "genelogical" sense from those who broke from the Catholic church as a result of the Reformation?
To that extent it is pretty clear that Mormons are Christians and Protestants. Hell, I think you can make a better argument that they are not Christians than that they are not Protestants, since the definition of "Christian" is inately a matter of doctrine and theology, while "Protestant" simply describes a grouping of sects that descend from a particular event.
Yeah, that's my issue. I'm unsure to what degree there is a coherent "Protestant" entity. If there is, then Mormons may be excepted, on the basis that they employ a superseding holy book, as a supplement to the New Testament.
If there is no coherent Protestantism, and it is determined purely by memetic descent, then they cannot be excepted; the problem with this is, once you let in Mormons with their wildly divergent ideas, you have to define, for example, Hong Xiuquan's Taiping Christianity as Protestant. At some point one may have to accept new genera.
I agree the Book of Mormon makes it seem difficult to argue they're Protestant. If there's one thing that you can boil Protestant identity down to it's reading and having reverence for the Bible. Their Churches come out of the printing press. To have a supplemental holy book would seem to me to undermine any claim to being Protestant.
If Mormons are Christian then I think they're a sui generis sect of Christianity, rather than Protestant.
But what would a theological definition of Protestantism be except for a generic rejection of some specific Catholic theological positions - and really, lets be honest, the historical protestant rejection of Catholicism was really more political and economic in nature than it was theological anyway (and rightly so, since it was driven by the Catholic Church inserting itself into economic and political life).
That's a good point Berk--well, I'm bound to accept that since it's what I was trying to say too :P --but I have no idea. I tend to see Christianity as a lumpen thing myself, though.* Catholicism's easy because of the Pope, but the overriding theme of Protestantism is hard to grasp for me.
I guess Lutherans and Calvinists are pretty similar, except the latter appear to misunderstand what predestination actually means and the former enthusiastically embrace the morally repugnant implications it has for their soteriology.
I mean, say what you will about Mormonism, but goofy space aliens cuckolding some Jewish carpenter over cosmic monstrosity doesn't lead to quite the same crisis of conscience whereupon you realize that you're far more moral than your dogma's rendition of God.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 02:26:54 AM
But what would a theological definition of Protestantism be except for a generic rejection of some specific Catholic theological positions - and really, lets be honest, the historical protestant rejection of Catholicism was really more political and economic in nature than it was theological anyway
I don't think there is a general theological definition of Protestantism. The closest I think you could get would be salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura. Then you get into the deeper weeds of predestination and episcopates and so on.
I don't know how the Mormons do on by faith alone - their investigation of ancestors suggest there may be a more sacramental element going on - but they absolutely fail on the Bible alone.
Quote(and rightly so, since it was driven by the Catholic Church inserting itself into economic and political life).
<_< Wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 02:57:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 02:26:54 AM
But what would a theological definition of Protestantism be except for a generic rejection of some specific Catholic theological positions - and really, lets be honest, the historical protestant rejection of Catholicism was really more political and economic in nature than it was theological anyway
I don't think there is a general theological definition of Protestantism. The closest I think you could get would be salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura. Then you get into the deeper weeds of predestination and episcopates and so on.
I don't know how the Mormons do on by faith alone - their investigation of ancestors suggest there may be a more sacramental element going on - but they absolutely fail on the Bible alone.
How so? A mormon would tell you that they consider the New Testament just as sacred and divinely inspired as any other Christian. They just don't think it is the LAST divine inspiration. I don't think that defines them out of Christianity.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 03:18:50 AM
How so? A mormon would tell you that they consider the New Testament just as sacred and divinely inspired as any other Christian. They just don't think it is the LAST divine inspiration. I don't think that defines them out of Christianity.
Sola scriptura means that all you need for salvation is in the Bible alone. The Catholics and Orthodoxes also believe that there are other sources of infallible, divine truths. Similarly Mormons may consider the New Testaments is sacred and divine, but they have a supplementary text of further revelations and necessary doctrine.
I think sola scriptura's as solid a theological basis for Protestantism as you can find. It doesn't necessarily define Mormons out of Christianity, but I think it does keep them out of Protestantism.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 02:26:54 AM
(and rightly so, since it was driven by the Catholic Church inserting itself into economic and political life).
Opposite. The Catholic Church was already in economic and political life, and served to balance the power of the monarchs. Protestantism appealed to the princes of Europe because it allowed them absolute power, and tear down the international structure that stood in the way of Nationalism.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2012, 03:30:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 02:26:54 AM
(and rightly so, since it was driven by the Catholic Church inserting itself into economic and political life).
Opposite. The Catholic Church was already in economic and political life, and served to balance the power of the monarchs. Protestantism appealed to the princes of Europe because it allowed them absolute power, and tear down the international structure that stood in the way of Nationalism.
Ironic, then, that the states which became the most despotic were Catholic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 03:24:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 03:18:50 AM
How so? A mormon would tell you that they consider the New Testament just as sacred and divinely inspired as any other Christian. They just don't think it is the LAST divine inspiration. I don't think that defines them out of Christianity.
Sola scriptura means that all you need for salvation is in the Bible alone. The Catholics and Orthodoxes also believe that there are other sources of infallible, divine truths. Similarly Mormons may consider the New Testaments is sacred and divine, but they have a supplementary text of further revelations and necessary doctrine.
I think sola scriptura's as solid a theological basis for Protestantism as you can find. It doesn't necessarily define Mormons out of Christianity, but I think it does keep them out of Protestantism.
I think it is certainly one by which you can exclude Mormons, but from an objective standpoint outside the religion, it doesn't strike me as definitive.
From a rational standpoint it has some flaws as well, since it relies on the idea that humans have the ability to decide what is and is not scripture, since it was just a bunch of humans getting together and deciding that A, B, and C was gospel, and X, Y, and Z was not. And there is little doubt that THOSE decisions were not strictly driven by theological concerns. But of course that is not convincing to someone within the church, since they operate under the assumption that somehow God would protect scripture.
But this all strikes me as special pleading. Protestants who think sola scriptura are what defines Protestantism obviously believe that to be true, and hence are rather content to make that a defining characteristic, while insisting that anyone who disagrees is by definition not protestant. One could as easily claim that only those who believe in speaking in tongues are the only true Protestants, and those who think otherwise are by definition not protestant. There is nothing special about sola scriptura that makes it definitionally exclusive.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 03:38:18 AMFrom a rational standpoint it has some flaws as well, since it relies on the idea that humans have the ability to decide what is and is not scripture, since it was just a bunch of humans getting together and deciding that A, B, and C was gospel, and X, Y, and Z was not. And there is little doubt that THOSE decisions were not strictly driven by theological concerns. But of course that is not convincing to someone within the church, since they operate under the assumption that somehow God would protect scripture.
I'm not sure what you mean that those decisions weren't driven by theological concerns.
QuoteBut this all strikes me as special pleading. Protestants who think sola scriptura are what defines Protestantism obviously believe that to be true, and hence are rather content to make that a defining characteristic, while insisting that anyone who disagrees is by definition not protestant. One could as easily claim that only those who believe in speaking in tongues are the only true Protestants, and those who think otherwise are by definition not protestant. There is nothing special about sola scriptura that makes it definitionally exclusive.
It's not special pleading.
You asked for a theological definition of Protestantism. I accept it's very difficult, if not impossible to provide one that fully accounts for all Protestant churches. However I think that the closest you can get would be to say that Protestantism is based on sola scriptura (referring to the Bible) and justification by faith alone. Unlike, say, speaking in tongues or trinitarianism I think those beliefs are more or less universal in Protestantism. I think they are almost its first premises, they are the theological origin of the break with Catholicism.
I think you need that complicating theological aspect to your genealogical definition of Protestantism. Otherwise you'd end up arguing that the Old Catholics, or Sedevacantists are Protestants, which strikes me as bizarre.
QuoteIronic, then, that the states which became the most despotic were Catholic.
Blame the Protestant and Catholic Reformations <_<
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 03:33:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2012, 03:30:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 02:26:54 AM
(and rightly so, since it was driven by the Catholic Church inserting itself into economic and political life).
Opposite. The Catholic Church was already in economic and political life, and served to balance the power of the monarchs. Protestantism appealed to the princes of Europe because it allowed them absolute power, and tear down the international structure that stood in the way of Nationalism.
Ironic, then, that the states which became the most despotic were Catholic.
Prussia was not Catholic.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2012, 02:06:09 AM
QuoteTo describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian church to any audience spreads a misconception that there is something other than Jesus Christ at the heart of the Mormon faith.
For Latter-day Saints, Jesus Christ is the Savior of all people, the divine Son of God. He is the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament, who taught about faith and about love for God and mankind. Jesus Christ — not Moses, Paul or Joseph Smith — is the object of Mormons' devotion and worship. As the Prophet Joseph Smith himself taught, "The fundamental principles of our religion are ... concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."
This is indeed the daily reality for Latter-day Saints. Jesus Christ is perpetually front and center in the lives of practicing members of the faith. Whenever Mormons pray to God, for instance, they do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Baptism by immersion, according to the symbolism of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, marks a person's entrance into the faith. The sacrament (what other Christian traditions call communion) is administered weekly in Sunday services for members to reflect on the mercy of Jesus Christ. When Latter-day Saints seek forgiveness, they do so through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. They serve the poor and needy and give of their time and money to numerous humanitarian aid efforts in order to follow Christ's teachings. Images of Christ adorn the faith's meetinghouses and temples. Church leaders and members testify of Jesus Christ's reality and divinity. The Son of God appears in the Church's official name: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." While some outsiders know Latter-day Saints as Mormons, members know themselves as part of Christ's Church.
At their best, Latter-day Saints' behavior, speech, thoughts and identity all reflect Christ and His teachings. If you ask a member what it means to belong to the Church, he or she will tell you that most fundamentally it means to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world and to follow Him.
For Latter-day Saints, being a Christian means being a disciple of Jesus Christ, loving and worshiping Him above all. It means prizing Christ and centering one's life on His teachings from the New Testament. It means striving to live the kind of life that Christ commanded, honoring Him in word and deed. This is the meaning of a Christian, and there is no doubt that Latter-day Saints — who pattern their lives after all of these things — belong to Christ's fold.
They sound pretty damn Christian to me.
No, I'm gonna have to agree with the fundy christians on this, they are not christians. To the Mormon heaven is a planet out there somewhere and the afterlife is a different planet where that mormon sets himself up as God. To the Mormon Jesus did not die in our place in punishment for our sins, which is the central idea of christianity.
Like Islam (and Bahai) Mormonism is a religion that includes a divine/divinely inspired character named Jesus Christ. This does not make any of these religions christian.
N.B. - I'd hold this view even if I were not atheist
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 02:18:32 AM
Yeah, that's my issue. I'm unsure to what degree there is a coherent "Protestant" entity. If there is, then Mormons may be excepted, on the basis that they employ a superseding holy book, as a supplement to the New Testament.
If there is no coherent Protestantism, and it is determined purely by memetic descent, then they cannot be excepted; the problem with this is, once you let in Mormons with their wildly divergent ideas, you have to define, for example, Hong Xiuquan's Taiping Christianity as Protestant. At some point one may have to accept new genera.
I consider the Protestant churches to be those who broke away in protest of their theological concerns, as opposed to scams like the Mormons or the Scientologists.
The SBC cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
Chuck Norris just endorsed Newt Gingrich.
http://gawker.com/5878019/its-over-chuck-norris-has-endorsed-newt-gingrich
He can be Secretary of Defense. ;)
He endorsed Huckabee last time.
Of course the day of the primary it's going to be pouring down rain.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:25:27 PM
Of course the day of the primary it's going to be pouring down rain.
Yeah, I have tornado watch until 8 PM. <_< This had better not affect my plans for dinner and drinks tonight.
It will be good to have done with all these campaign ads, though. Can't even have a pint without unwanted retards in my face.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 21, 2012, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:25:27 PM
Of course the day of the primary it's going to be pouring down rain.
Yeah, I have tornado watch until 8 PM. <_< This had better not affect my plans for dinner and drinks tonight.
It will be good to have done with all these campaign ads, though. Can't even have a pint without unwanted retards in my face.
Dude, go vote for Gingrich. We can fuck this shit up.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:54:40 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 21, 2012, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:25:27 PM
Of course the day of the primary it's going to be pouring down rain.
Yeah, I have tornado watch until 8 PM. <_< This had better not affect my plans for dinner and drinks tonight.
It will be good to have done with all these campaign ads, though. Can't even have a pint without unwanted retards in my face.
Dude, go vote for Gingrich. We can fuck this shit up.
I can't - registered for Oregon District #5 (home of record)
Yeah, I can see why you'd do that, since your permanent address has been South Carolina for about six years.
Admittedly, it is clever, given that your vote in the general election actually counts. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 02:04:57 PM
Yeah, I can see why you'd do that, since your permanent address has been South Carolina for about six years.
Admittedly, it is clever, given that your vote in the general election actually counts. :(
Yes, and I refuse to surrender my Oregon plates or registration for anything. I am an Oregonian in federal service.
Plus, OR #5 is actually a competitive district (most competitive in Oregon), so I like keeping my original home of record.
SC gets my property tax, and can do what it likes with it.
It kills immigrants with it. OK, I made that up. Probably.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
It kills immigrants with it. OK, I made that up. Probably.
Well, it's not moving SC up in the school rankings, which would be my preferred use of my tax money.
SC wants so badly to bring jobs to the state, but won't fix the schools. Here on the Georgialina border, I know quite a few military families that are living in Evans and Grovetown just because of the schools. They'd prefer to be over here in Aiken County and get away from the base and base people, but the SC schools aren't competitive with GA schools...
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 21, 2012, 02:34:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
It kills immigrants with it. OK, I made that up. Probably.
Well, it's not moving SC up in the school rankings, which would be my preferred use of my tax money.
SC wants so badly to bring jobs to the state, but won't fix the schools. Here on the Georgialina border, I know quite a few military families that are living in Evans and Grovetown just because of the schools. They'd prefer to be over here in Aiken County and get away from the base and base people, but the SC schools aren't competitive with GA schools...
Fix the families. Children will do better academically among other lifelong benefits.
Does SC do lotto? That's a big source of GA education dollars.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 21, 2012, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 21, 2012, 02:34:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
It kills immigrants with it. OK, I made that up. Probably.
Well, it's not moving SC up in the school rankings, which would be my preferred use of my tax money.
SC wants so badly to bring jobs to the state, but won't fix the schools. Here on the Georgialina border, I know quite a few military families that are living in Evans and Grovetown just because of the schools. They'd prefer to be over here in Aiken County and get away from the base and base people, but the SC schools aren't competitive with GA schools...
Fix the families. Children will do better academically among other lifelong benefits.
Well, yes of course - but there is a legit funding issue here. SC seriously underfunds the school system.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2012, 02:36:37 PM
Does SC do lotto? That's a big source of GA education dollars.
I'm pretty sure they do, and I'm also pretty sure that it's for education, but I suspect that they also use that as an excuse to not properly fund the schools in the first place - and the lottery isn't making up the difference.
Wow, that was preposterously easy. On one hand, it'd be awesome if real elections were like that--a line of three people, including me, and the entire process being contained within the running time of KISS' disco foray "I Was Made For Lovin' You"--and on the other, I feel kind of let down that the solemn job of interfering with my political opponents was over so quickly.
Oh well. I threw my Gingwrench into the machine. We'll see what happens.
Of course, I am also haunted by the prospect, that, come November, I will have helped install a monster in the White House, condemning America to perdition and consigning the American people to slavery. Even worse, I'd owe Yi $100 and the satisfaction of being right. Ugh.
Somehow I doubt the GOP can get their act together with these candidates, all are flawed.
It's going to be a tough sell to oust the incumbent when your choice is either Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul.
This primary reminds me of when I was loitering around Five Points in Columbia in October 2008, pretending to be a huge McCain supporter because I was trying to get into this Blonde's Panties (R).
Like Romney, I gained some initial traction, until some dude dressed like a pizza delivery man swooped her away from under my nose. :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 21, 2012, 02:39:29 PM
SC seriously underfunds the school system.
Too many negroes.
When I was looking at relocating a few years ago to South Carolina, had to come to the realization that there are only three major employers there; state government, the US military, and Blue Cross Screw First.
And as much as I was interested in pursuing their out-of-state recruitment of high school teachers, there was no way in holy hell I--the ardent Unionist and abolitionist that I am--was going to be a history teacher in a school system that refers to it as the "War of Northern Aggression."
Well, shit. Gingrich is being projected to win in SC.
Quote from: Kleves on January 21, 2012, 07:15:07 PM
Well, shit. Gingrich is being projected to win in SC.
Were you surprised by this, i mean look at them dumb yokels like Ide.
When President Gingrich takes office, he'll only have himself to blame. :(
Quote from: Kleves on January 21, 2012, 07:15:07 PM
Well, shit. Gingrich is being projected to win in SC.
Lolololol.
Quote from: Kleves on January 21, 2012, 07:15:07 PM
Well, shit. Gingrich is being projected to win in SC.
http://youtu.be/OEunVObSnVM?t=1m10s
Well at least it's not Ron Paul.
Newt looks like he could have swept all of the delegates and Santorum's done better than I expected.
This is more impressive than Clinton in NH in 2008 or 1992. Florida could be interesting, until his collapse in December Newt was far ahead there.
Romney's going to turn the attacks on Newt in a big way.
Quote from: Kleves on January 21, 2012, 07:15:07 PM
Well, shit. Gingrich is being projected to win in SC.
This is getting more and more "interesting", and will now get dragged out even longer. :hmm:
Interesting exit poll result. Among voters who said choosing a candidate who could beat Obama was their top consideration - Gingrich 49%, Romney 41%.
I think Newt's idea of imagine Romney debating Obama has gained some traction.
Edit: I think we'll see Republican elites grasping for someone else in the next few days. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rash of 'draft Daniels' or 'draft Bush'.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-QsRLX1oDTT4%2FTjTQ1DzgO6I%2FAAAAAAAAAGs%2F1mksY_zwbyw%2Fs1600%2Fexcellent-mr-burns.gif&hash=f64955d5da38db46872f414f5daf15567d8a9c3e)
Wait, who does Monty Burns represent? The old rich guy or the old rich guy?
Lord Newt's ego is extraordinary. 'It's not that I'm a good debater. It's that I articulate the deepest felt values of the American people.' :lol:
Edit: Newt's making a play for Paul's voters. He's been right, on the issue of money and the Fed, for 25 years. He's worried about 'fiat money'. Paul's greatest achievement is that his views have gone from the bizarre sideshow in 2008 to acceptable Republican views in 2012.
Sadly it's his views on the Fed rather than, say, foreign policy, drugs or civil liberties.
I wonder if it wasn't just me that had the idea of spoiling the SC primary. I mean, when I was at my precinct, there was a black woman voting. You can't tell me that was on the level.
Poor Mitt. He lost two out of one primaries this week. If he was capable of experiencing feelings, he would be pretty bummed right around now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
Paul's greatest achievement is that his views have gone from the bizarre sideshow in 2008 to acceptable Republican views in 2012.
Sadly it's his views on the Fed rather than, say, foreign policy
Negative. Stop being a bad ally.
Newt just effectively stole Cameron's 'big society'. It sounded less like vapid bullshit from Newt.
The county Romney's doing best in is 'Richland' :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 09:27:22 PM
Edit: I think we'll see Republican elites grasping for someone else in the next few days. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rash of 'draft Daniels' or 'draft Bush'.
That'd be pretty cool, especially if it results in an old school brokered convention.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 09:46:54 PM
The county Romney's doing best in is 'Richland' :lol:
<_<
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 09:35:39 PM
I wonder if it wasn't just me that had the idea of spoiling the SC primary. I mean, when I was at my precinct, there was a black woman voting. You can't tell me that was on the level.
:lol:
The primary race is still early, especially given that the races are split. I think Romney was polling well in Florida, one of the next states. Not sure how things stand there now. He was doing very well but he fell down on the last two debates. Among other things, Bain and taxes. By now he should have had no problem discussing his time at Bain, should have easily anticipated that. And he seemed to be so timid and unsure on releasing his taxes. Just make a decision!
I'm surprised to see Santorum still in there. I figured he'd fizzle, but that was before the voting started. He's shown some strength.
I figured Gingrich was down and out but he came on strong the last two weeks, after stopping his dumb ass attacks on Romney and Bain. He just botched all that, I feel.
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2012, 09:53:25 PM
I figured Gingrich was down and out but he came on strong the last two weeks, after stopping his dumb ass attacks on Romney and Bain. He just botched all that, I feel.
He stepped those attacks up in the last two weeks. He paid for a thirty minute documentary about it in SC last week.
Quote from: sbr on January 21, 2012, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 09:49:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 09:46:54 PM
The county Romney's doing best in is 'Richland' :lol:
<_<
Is that your county?
Yep. -_-
Actually, I have no idea how primaries work. Does my vote count toward the total of South Carolinian votes, or is it winner-take-all for counties, or what?
Extraordinarily Gingrich won a majority of married women :mellow:
Romney lost every income group but those who earn over $200 000. I think they could now be almost equal in the popular vote nationally.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 09:55:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2012, 09:53:25 PM
I figured Gingrich was down and out but he came on strong the last two weeks, after stopping his dumb ass attacks on Romney and Bain. He just botched all that, I feel.
He stepped those attacks up in the last two weeks. He paid for a thirty minute documentary about it in SC last week.
He must have changed how he was doing the attacks, because I think they were hurting him before. Before he sounded like he was attacking Capitalism and the Free Market, as much as he was trying to slam Romney. Now he must have refined his attacks. But as I said, Romney should be able to speak to all that, and mitigate some of the damage. He just seemed ill prepared at first.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 21, 2012, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 09:49:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 09:46:54 PM
The county Romney's doing best in is 'Richland' :lol:
<_<
Is that your county?
Yep. -_-
Actually, I have no idea how primaries work. Does my vote count toward the total of South Carolinian votes, or is it winner-take-all for counties, or what?
I think it varies by state, I saw somewhere that SC was a winner take all state. Don't bet any money on that though.
Someone on CNN just compared Romney to 'a mayonnaise sandwich on a silver plate'. I have no idea what that means :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 10:16:29 PM
Someone on CNN just compared Romney to 'a mayonnaise sandwich on a silver plate'. I have no idea what that means :mellow:
No substance, no matter how nice it looks?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 09:59:07 PMYep. -_-
Actually, I have no idea how primaries work. Does my vote count toward the total of South Carolinian votes, or is it winner-take-all for counties, or what?
11 delegates for the state winner, then 2 for each Congressional district (I think).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2012, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2012, 08:58:55 PM
Well at least it's not Ron Paul.
:bash:
Sorry, I might be crazy, but I'm not that crazy. For instance, I'm not worried that the UN will invade or otherwise take over the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X554O6TwiYM#!
Seems like Newt's race baiting bore fruit.
I think you're correct, Sheilbh--
Quote from: Bloomberg articleSouth Carolina uses a "winner-take-all" system to award delegates. A candidate is awarded 11 delegates for winning the primary, plus two delegates for each congressional district won. South Carolina has seven districts beginning with the 2012 election.
Hurm. Well, I guess I helped after all.
Listening to the focus groups makes my brain shrivel up and die.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
Seems like Newt's race baiting bore fruit.
One interesting dynamic in Nevada and Florida will be how Hispanic Republicans vote. Newt is to the left of the rest on immigration (and was attacked for calling for a 'humane approach'), though his ideas sound hideously dystopian. I can also see Santorum appealing to proper Catholics, he's a serious, Catholic candidate in his approach.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, campaigned in Miami in 2008. He ended his speech as Castro would with 'patria o muerte - venceremos!' Apparently the crowd visibly winced.
QuoteListening to the focus groups makes my brain shrivel up and die.
Oh sweet Jesus. Some woman has just praised Newt's family values :blink:
In the same Florida focus group, which is clearly made up of idiots, they now think Gingrich is more electable. That's bizarrely one of the more respectable opinions in the room.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2012, 10:26:53 PM
Listening to the focus groups makes my brain shrivel up and die.
What they saying?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2012, 10:26:53 PM
Listening to the focus groups makes my brain shrivel up and die.
What they saying?
Don't remember, my brain tripped into safe mode within seconds of exposure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
Seems like Newt's race baiting bore fruit.
One interesting dynamic in Nevada and Florida will be how Hispanic Republicans vote. Newt is to the left of the rest on immigration (and was attacked for calling for a 'humane approach'), though his ideas sound hideously dystopian. I can also see Santorum appealing to proper Catholics, he's a serious, Catholic candidate in his approach.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, campaigned in Miami in 2008. He ended his speech as Castro would with 'patria o muerte - venceremos!' Apparently the crowd visibly winced.
QuoteListening to the focus groups makes my brain shrivel up and die.
Oh sweet Jesus. Some woman has just praised Newt's family values :blink:
In the same Florida focus group, which is clearly made up of idiots, they now think Gingrich is more electable. That's bizarrely one of the more respectable opinions in the room.
Gingrich is clever. He knows where to use those "Food stamp President" lines, and where not to. I don't think he's a racist, but he's knows when to play the race card.
I'm unsure if Gingrich would make a good President (ignoring ideology). One of his biggest problems is that people just don't like him that well. He's pompous and arrogant and looks down at his nose at people who he believes isn't as smart as he is (which is pretty much everyone). He also has a bad habit of throwing tantrums and getting all sulky. And that's just his problems with fellow Republican lawmakers.
Still, part of me likes the man.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 12:33:53 AM
I'm unsure if Gingrich would make a good President (ignoring ideology). One of his biggest problems is that people just don't like him that well. He's pompous and arrogant and looks down at his nose at people who he believes isn't as smart as he is (which is pretty much everyone). He also has a bad habit of throwing tantrums and getting all sulky. And that's just his problems with fellow Republican lawmakers.
Still, part of me likes the man.
And yet I'm odd for liking people like Santorum, Paul and Huckabee who seem quite nice, decent guys and all seem to have convictions of some sort.
I think Newt would be a dreadful President. He's temperamentally entirely wrong.
I agree.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 12:48:59 AM
I think Newt would be a dreadful President. He's temperamentally entirely wrong.
Yeah, the thought of him as the most powerful man in the world is actually seriously terrifying. Smart guy, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and the kind of person who seems convinced that he is not only smarter than everyone else, but believes he knows more than everyone else as well...hence no need to listen to "experts" because he is both smarter AND more knowledgeable. That is a very, very dangerous ego combination in someone with power.
The debates this past week. Romney did poorly in them. Gingrich did awesome in them
If Romney wants to stop getting electorally embarrassed, he needs to debate better. He also needs Ron Paul now more than ever.
I don't think he really needs Ron Paul. Ron Paul voters aren't spoilers, they're nutcases. They don't typically have a second choice.
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2012, 04:51:56 AM
I don't think he really needs Ron Paul. Ron Paul voters aren't spoilers, they're nutcases. They don't typically have a second choice.
Attack dog. Paul destroyed Gingrich and Santorum the week of the New Hampshire primary and prior. This past week: not so much.
Though, I am willing to claim that part of that was the media's fault to significant degree. In the last debate, the moderator continually moved on to other questions without asking Ron Paul. Finally, the audience booed loudly in the last 20 minutes when this happened again, finally allowing Paul to contribute.
When it comes to electoral strategy, it is continually demonstrated that (social) conservatives refuse to embrace Romney. Romney (and Paul) need to try and weaken Gingrich and Santorum and have the two fight each other.
I think it's more that Newt and Santorum aren't going to do well in NH than that Paul destroyed them to be honest. But I agree that Paul was ignored in the CNN debate, he wasn't in the Fox debate though. It was just one of his worst performances (especially the killing Osama bin Laden bit). He was rambling and incoherent even by his standards.
Gingrich and Santorum did have a big fight this week. Santorum was on form on healthcare (I think, in the long run, his attack on Romneycare will matter more than Bain or tax returns) and really went for Newt being wrong for a decade.
But he also attacked him for his time as Speaker. 'Grandiosity has never been a problem for Newt...That is not a cogent thought...An idea a minute. No discipline.' As I said at the time I think it's very effective.
But I don't know that it'll actually hurt Newt. I think the fact that he's egotistical and undisciplined are part of his package, so it's a bit like a Democrat attacking Biden because he might make gaffes in the White House. That's an accurate, valid attack but it's already priced in.
One interesting and possibly terrifying thing, which I mentioned earlier, is just how much Paul has actually influenced the GOP since 2008. Last night Gingrich made a blatant play for Paul supporters. I think the biggest reason Paul won't do a third party run is because he's starting to get real influence and he's laying the ground for Rand Paul 2016.
Who's the new gal behind Mitt Romney? :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F01%2F21%2Fus%2F20120121_511_sc_primary-slide-ULRF%2F20120121_511_sc_primary-slide-ULRF-hpLarge.jpg&hash=6c41d1c66577f29438e5bab269e09854f87ae11a)
They dumped the ugly Romlets! :w00t:
Quote from: Berkut on January 22, 2012, 01:29:36 AM
Yeah, the thought of him as the most powerful man in the world is actually seriously terrifying. Smart guy, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and the kind of person who seems convinced that he is not only smarter than everyone else, but believes he knows more than everyone else as well...hence no need to listen to "experts" because he is both smarter AND more knowledgeable. That is a very, very dangerous ego combination in someone with power.
I agree. I can't stand Newt and would vote for practically anyone, including Obama, before I've vote for him.
I don't think Newt's personality should be *that* big a deal. Sure, he's full of himself, but is the ability to hide that fact that great a requirement? :hmm:
A candidate's personality should be the biggest issue. Especially when it's as bad as Newt's.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2012, 08:34:19 AM
I don't think Newt's personality should be *that* big a deal. Sure, he's full of himself, but is the ability to hide that fact that great a requirement? :hmm:
It's hampered him before. As Speaker he was so despised that is own party members tried to toss him out. The ability to get along well with others is a huge part of being a leader. This deficiency was also what allowed Bill Clinton to consistently out maneuver him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 12:48:59 AM
And yet I'm odd for liking people like Santorum, Paul and Huckabee who seem quite nice, decent guys and all seem to have convictions of some sort.
No, just Santorum. Santrum is a bigger kook than Paul, but with less conviction and more calculation. He argues that scientists are immoral and must be heavily regulated, and that human rights should not be promoted/protected where they interfere with his stone-age view of that is "natural." He is smart enough to know that those positions are purely ideological, but promotes them anyway for political gain.
QuoteI think Newt would be a dreadful President. He's temperamentally entirely wrong.
A Gingrich presidency would be almost hilariously bad. I'd rather laugh at it while reading about it in one of his alt-hist books, though. In reality, his arrogance and tantrums would shoot the whole world right in the ass. Even when his ideas are right, his methods are crap.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
A candidate's personality should be the biggest issue. Especially when it's as bad as Newt's.
Thought the GOP would've learned their lesson with Nixon.
I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 10:08:14 AM
I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.
Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 22, 2012, 10:11:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 10:08:14 AM
I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.
Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.
So does Ron Paul.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 22, 2012, 10:11:38 AM
Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.
:lol:
Yeah, the idea that I am a Paulite is rather amusing. I don't foam at the mouth when his name comes up, since I think that his proposals are honestly meant. The fact that he could honestly think such ideas are good ones says a lot about his grip on reality. He is Cato the Younger. I am not Optimate.
With Huntsman out of the race, the only one even remotely Populare left is Romney, and he is a Crassus, not a Drusus.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 22, 2012, 10:11:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 10:08:14 AM
I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.
Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.
yes Querimonius Pedanticus was one of the first men over the walls.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2012, 09:41:27 AM
No, just Santorum. Santrum is a bigger kook than Paul, but with less conviction and more calculation. He argues that scientists are immoral and must be heavily regulated, and that human rights should not be promoted/protected where they interfere with his stone-age view of that is "natural." He is smart enough to know that those positions are purely ideological, but promotes them anyway for political gain.
I'm not sure what you mean by purely ideological in terms of it describing Santorum's positions, presumably as opposed to Paul's.
I don't see the distinction. I think Paul is a conviction libertarian and that Santorum's a conviction Catholic theocon. One example of him not politically pandering would be the question on SOPA at the debate on Thursday. Paul gave the answer you'd expect. Gingrich played it for points by ranting against Hollywood. Romney shamelessly pandered. Then Santorum said perhaps SOPA in particular went too far, but then, as you'd expect from someone with his very hardcore views, said the internet can't be a 'free for all' and so on. It was a very unpopular answer, but I think it was believed and genuine. I also think his answer on 'a gay son' was sincere and very well meant, similarly his attacks on Romneycare don't seem feigned. I think he's honest in his views and like Paul has a deeper emotional range than Newt's choice of self-congratulation or rage.
I agree with a lot of the points in this article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/21/santorum-his-politics-aside-makes-an-appealing-candidate.html
I disagree that Paul doesn't pander. I think those newsletters he published indicated he was willing to pander to some rather unpleasant people. The difference between Paul and someone like Romney or Gingrich is that Paul panders to advance a few particular goals. Romney and Gingrich pander to advance themselves.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 10:08:14 AM
I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.
Only because grumbler supports marijuana legalization. He gets stoned and claims glaucoma, but it's really near-sightedness.
Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.
He might gain more traction though, because he comes out with ideas for significant change. Many voters are so angry with Washington's politics these days, and want change, and may be in the mood to vote for Newt as a guy who speaks volumes about the problems of Washington and his ideas for real change. Similar to Ron Paul for that matter, though Paul seems to go way too far. So Newt may gain more and more traction, that is, if he can keep his head and not scare off too many voters. Polling from SC I saw today showed voters there felt Newt had a better chance vs Obama, though I disagree with that. But he sure can debate, and has such a good grasp on information and his own views that he puts on a strong show in debates.
Quote from: KRonn on January 22, 2012, 01:32:25 PM
Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.
He might gain more traction though, because he comes out with ideas for significant change. Many voters are so angry with Washington's politics these days, and want change, and may be in the mood to vote for Newt as a guy who speaks volumes about the problems of Washington and his ideas for real change. Similar to Ron Paul for that matter, though Paul seems to go way too far. So Newt may gain more and more traction, that is, if he can keep his head and not scare off too many voters. Polling from SC I saw today showed voters there felt Newt had a better chance vs Obama, though I disagree with that. But he sure can debate, and has such a good grasp on information and his own views that he puts on a strong show in debates.
Obama also made people hot in their underwear when he spoke in 2008, but that does not get you far once in office...
But people like talkers. It's so easy to seduce women (and men) on the first date without doing any work. :(
Quote from: KRonn on January 22, 2012, 01:32:25 PM
Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.
He might gain more traction though, because he comes out with ideas for significant change. Many voters are so angry with Washington's politics these days, and want change, and may be in the mood to vote for Newt as a guy who speaks volumes about the problems of Washington and his ideas for real change. Similar to Ron Paul for that matter, though Paul seems to go way too far. So Newt may gain more and more traction, that is, if he can keep his head and not scare off too many voters. Polling from SC I saw today showed voters there felt Newt had a better chance vs Obama, though I disagree with that. But he sure can debate, and has such a good grasp on information and his own views that he puts on a strong show in debates.
South Carolinians are fucking retards. Don't listen to what they have to say about anything.
Don't worry, I don't.
:P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 22, 2012, 02:59:14 PM
South Carolinians are fucking retards. Don't listen to what they have to say about anything.
"South Carolina - too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum"
They make some damn fine pulled pork tho. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 22, 2012, 01:04:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2012, 10:08:14 AM
I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.
Only because grumbler supports marijuana legalization. He gets stoned and claims glaucoma, but it's really near-sightedness.
Anyone defending Paul for any reason is suspect. Paulites must be quickly identified and purged.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 11:13:25 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by purely ideological in terms of it describing Santorum's positions, presumably as opposed to Paul's.
Sorry, I mean to call him a demagogue, as opposed to an ideologue. I don't mind ideologues per se.
Quote
I don't see the distinction. I think Paul is a conviction libertarian and that Santorum's a conviction Catholic theocon. One example of him not politically pandering would be the question on SOPA at the debate on Thursday. Paul gave the answer you'd expect. Gingrich played it for points by ranting against Hollywood. Romney shamelessly pandered. Then Santorum said perhaps SOPA in particular went too far, but then, as you'd expect from someone with his very hardcore views, said the internet can't be a 'free for all' and so on. It was a very unpopular answer, but I think it was believed and genuine. I also think his answer on 'a gay son' was sincere and very well meant, similarly his attacks on Romneycare don't seem feigned. I think he's honest in his views and like Paul has a deeper emotional range than Newt's choice of self-congratulation or rage.
I agree with a lot of the points in this article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/21/santorum-his-politics-aside-makes-an-appealing-candidate.html
I don't believe Santorum has hard and fast views. I believe he shapes his message as a hard-right message because that's what he thinks will sell. The article points out the extent of his hypocrisy; he accepts an invitation to "The Patriot Dinner" to honor him as "a great American from the Citadel's perspective." Yet, what has he done that is patriotic? What sacrifices has he made in the cause of his nation? Absolutely none, as far as I can tell; he is a career politician who has never done a thing outside of running for and holding office (bar a brief law career in this 20s). To accept a dinner invitation like that as a "patriot" mocks genuine patriots.
He did change his mind repeatedly on Intelligent Design, considering it science or not-science depending on what the prevailing public mood was.
I'll grant that his attacks on Romneycare and defense of Bushcare are probably based on the genuine belief that the sooner the poor (unless elderly) die off, the better for everyone.
Oh, Shelf, and on the article: that is one weird piece of work. The author claims that
QuoteIt turns out that Santorum has a deep connection to the Citadel. A young but important aide named Steven Munoz, who did yeoman's work in Iowa, is a recent graduate. One of the candidate's key endorsers in the state, Gresham Barrett, a former congressman, is an alumnus.
One alumnus friend and one alumnus subordinate don't really make for a "deep connection" to a place. I have a connection to LSE because one of my degrees was earned there, but it isn't a "deep connection."
The author argues that "you haven't heard anyone accuse him of flip-flopping." He won his house seat in large part by attacking Doug Walgren for living outside the state most of the year ; he then proceeded to move his family to DC and live there most of the year (admitted that he probably spent a month year in Pennsylvania). He has changed his mind (flip-flopped) on abortion, intelligent design, ethanol subsidies, synthetic fuels, and earmarks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 22, 2012, 01:04:57 PM
Only because grumbler supports marijuana legalization. He gets stoned and claims glaucoma, but it's really near-sightedness.
:lol: I do support marijuana legalization, but haven't used the stuff since my college days (and it was legal in Ann Arbor back then).
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2012, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 22, 2012, 01:04:57 PM
Only because grumbler supports marijuana legalization. He gets stoned and claims glaucoma, but it's really near-sightedness.
:lol: I do support marijuana legalization, but haven't used the stuff since my college days (and it was legal in Ann Arbor back then).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinarc.org%2FHarpers_opium_den_web.jpg&hash=5fd19779fe4c4787095a77f43fe3ec101a538c5f)
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2012, 05:06:17 PM
The author argues that "you haven't heard anyone accuse him of flip-flopping." He won his house seat in large part by attacking Doug Walgren for living outside the state most of the year ; he then proceeded to move his family to DC and live there most of the year (admitted that he probably spent a month year in Pennsylvania). He has changed his mind (flip-flopped) on abortion, intelligent design, ethanol subsidies, synthetic fuels, and earmarks.
Hadn't heard about abortion or intelligent design, but that surprises me. The rest are issues that I don't think matter too much, they're very rarely the subject of conviction politics. I think I'd be suspicious of someone with fixed, immoveable ideological views on ethanol :P
The first poll from Florida came out today. It's rated by Nate Silver's blog. Had Newt 8 points ahead of Romney (34-26). One interesting point which I didn't know is that Romney won the white vote in Florida in 2008 but he was absolutely destroyed by the Hispanics (52% for McCain, 14% for Romney). As I mentioned earlier Romney's had issues connecting before (using Castro's slogan) and is to Newt's right on immigration which could make it difficult for him.
Does anyone know if there's any stuff on how Catholics feel about Mormonism? I know the evangelicals don't like it, but I suspect Catholics could actually be even more hostile.
Edit: Also interesting. Apparently evangelicals and religious right leaders are furiously fundraising for Santorum. It's not really for Santorum so much as it's for a stop Gingrich campaign. Their worry is that if he's their candidate they won't really be able to raise the issue of 'family values' in the general :lol:
Edit: Romney's releasing his 2011 and 2010 tax returns. I don't think that'll suffice. As Ben Smith put it I think that'll just be blood in the water and before the week's out there'll be calls for him to release the past decade or so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 12:00:37 AM
Hadn't heard about abortion or intelligent design, but that surprises me. The rest are issues that I don't think matter too much, they're very rarely the subject of conviction politics. I think I'd be suspicious of someone with fixed, immoveable ideological views on ethanol :P
Indeed. Santorum's convictions are "honestly held;" they just change based on geography.
QuoteOne interesting point which I didn't know is that Romney won the white vote in Florida in 2008 but he was absolutely destroyed by the Hispanics (52% for McCain, 14% for Romney).
One interesting thing I didn't know is that some people don't think Hispanics are "white."
I thought that was standard terminology in the US, for example, here:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1024/exit-poll-analysis-hispanics
But I find it a very odd distinction.
Edit: Although according to that Pew thing it is cultural not racial so it's a bit different.
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 07:30:36 AM
One interesting thing I didn't know is that some people don't think Hispanics are "white."
Yeah, people like polling agencies, anybody who is civilized, those sorts of people.
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 08:39:29 AM
Yeah, people like polling agencies, anybody who is civilized, those sorts of people.
It's funny to think that some people can consider themselves civilized even when they know they are categorizing people in the way polling agencies do. You know who I am talking about. Morons. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 12:14:55 PMIt's funny to think that some people can consider themselves civilized even when they know they are categorizing people in the way polling agencies do. You know who I am talking about. Morons. :lol:
:o Harsh. I was referring to polling data, seems fair to use pollsters terms.
Which alternate method of categorizing people would you suggest?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2012, 12:20:32 PM
Which alternate method of categorizing people would you suggest?
Uber and unter. :)
Quote from: KRonn on January 22, 2012, 01:32:25 PM
Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.
Newt has been going around for the last couple weeks talking in interviews about how he's mellowed out since the 90s and become more circumspect. Probably a reaction to that stuff that came out in the news about his history as Speaker. Says now that he has grandkids everything's different blah blah blah.
I guess that means he is less likely to push for an impeachment of a sitting President. Especially if he wins.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
:o Harsh. I was referring to polling data, seems fair to use pollsters terms.
I think it might be a mistake to take my comments, or Neil's, as seriously meant. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomwoods.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2F397217_10150507063803526_735863525_8921777_1101330132_n1.jpg&hash=0f5f55a9f5d00497a2c11ec8a07ef9d5cd531484)
I'm kind of liking Newt more then Mitt.
I like Newt more then Mitt, but recognize that Mitt would make far superior President then Newt. I respect Newts intelligence, but the man can't lead. He also has a bad habit of going to the lowest common denominator first in politics which I think is because he hold the general public (and most of his colleges), in contempt.
Quote from: Siege on January 23, 2012, 08:15:01 PM
I'm kind of liking Newt more then Mitt.
That's like saying you like New Coke better than you like Tab.
I like Mitt because, like Bill Maher said last week, "there's a 46% chance he's actually a Democrat."
Newt is a douchebag asshole of the highest degree, only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so well in these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
Watching the debate now.
Take a look at the two guys in the audience behind Brian Williams. I can't tell if they're young Mormons, or junior set of Halderman and Erlichmann.
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
It's a media construct.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2012, 09:37:25 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
It's a media construct.
i was thinking pragmatic racists, but i guess yours works too :lol:
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so well in these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
I think that Newt taps into the annoyance, discord and feelings of things in Washington are going very wrong. Enough voters feel that way and Newt is the best one at playing that up. So regardless of his baggage, when he can tap into those feelings he does ok. I don't know if that will hold up well enough for him to carry the primaries, or the main election.
The career politician who built his powerbase ranting about career politicians. I'd take Mitt over that, though I'd be thinking of 2000 Maverick McCain.
Quote from: KRonn on January 23, 2012, 09:48:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so well in these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
I think that Newt taps into the annoyance, discord and feelings of things in Washington are going very wrong. Enough voters feel that way and Newt is the best one at playing that up. So regardless of his baggage, when he can tap into those feelings he does ok. I don't know if that will hold up well enough for him to carry the primaries, or the main election.
Well, most successful politicians do that. I imagine if you went up there and polled Congressmen you'd find very few who describe themselves as a "Washington Insider". The thing is, Newt was part of the problem of why things are wrong in Washington.
Christ, every time Ron Paul says something salient about the economy, he opens his mouth about foreign policy. And erases it.
"Taking on Iran is just wrong. I mean, how would we feel if someone threatened to close the Gulf of Mexico?"
Yes, he just said that.
What a pothead weenie.
Yeah, I'd still take Mitt as a candidate over Newt, even though Newt talks a better game about change. He did do some bigger changes when Speaker, like Welfare reform with Pres Clinton, and some other stuff. But I'm just not sold on Newt being a leader type, and there's his baggage of being ousted from his Speakership by fellow Repubs angry over his poor leadership.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
Christ, every time Ron Paul says something salient about the economy, he opens his mouth about foreign policy. And erases it.
"Taking on Iran is just wrong. I mean, how would we feel if someone threatened to close the Gulf of Mexico?"
Yes, he just said that.
What a pothead weenie.
True dat.
No comments about influence peddling? I think Mitt got Newt on the ropes there, and Brian Williams totally bailed out Newt's ass with a timely thrown ad towel.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Wait? Is there another debate? :huh:
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking debates in this motherfucking primary race! :mad:
I think it's a good thing. Debates put a candidate to the test much better than stump speeches and attack ads. If one was truly fatigued* by them, why would he be watching Fox/CNN during prime time in the first place? :wacko:
*Yes, I got the SOAP reference.
I don't watch TV.
Quote from: Siege on January 23, 2012, 08:15:01 PM
I'm kind of liking Newt more then Mitt.
He writes alt-history novels where the Nazis win. You should hate him with all of your soul.
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so well in these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
They like him because he has the balls to openly what they wish they could get away with.
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Nixon had a habit of seeing enemies that weren't there. And you know that.
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so well in these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
As Disraeli said of Gladstone, the problem with Mitt is that he has no redeeming defects.
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mitt. Given that the last politicians I felt sorry for were Brown and Palin that's probably not a good thing.
Edit: Incidentally I think Mitt's business roundtable this morning is exactly what he should be doing. Shame about the mild gaffe but more of that will help.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 23, 2012, 11:08:33 PM
He writes alt-history novels where the Nazis win.
Only one.
All the rest are about the ACW or the American Revolutionary War or the War in the Pacific.
The man whose PhD in European History was so impressive as to convince Freddie Mac to pay him $25,000/month for his historical insights has never actually written a book on any topic relating to European history. Other than the Nazi one, even his novels don't go there.
An article from 1984 about Republican rising star Newt Gingrich:
http://motherjones.com/politics/1984/11/newt-gingrich-shining-knight-post-reagan-right
From his former friend and adviser:
Quote"He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He's Richard Nixon, glib. It doesn't matter how much good I do the rest of my life, I can't ever outweigh the evil that I've caused by helping him be elected to Congress."
:lol:
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 24, 2012, 05:40:33 PM
An article from 1984 about Republican rising star Newt Gingrich:
http://motherjones.com/politics/1984/11/newt-gingrich-shining-knight-post-reagan-right
Thanks for posting that. Pretty interesting stuff, though obviously a lot more biased than the author lets on.
Even if the specifics are less cut-and-dried than they are given to appear, though, they give me a rational basis for my instinctive contempt for the man. I'd rather see Santorum or even Paul in the White House before him.
Not to dispute the article, but I don't think it's right to call Nixon glib.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
Not to dispute the article, but I don't think it's right to call Nixon glib.
Yes, I saw that and couldn't make sense of it; glib no, thoughtful, intense, paranoid, insincere at times yes. Hard working, at all times.
Quote from: mongers on January 24, 2012, 07:09:59 PM
Yes, I saw that and couldn't make sense of it; glib no, thoughtful, intense, paranoid, insincere at times yes. Hard working, at all times.
This.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
Not to dispute the article, but I don't think it's right to call Nixon glib.
Isn't it saying he is a glib Richard Nixon? As in "richard Nixon, but glib"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Nixon had a habit of seeing enemies that weren't there. And you know that.
Nixon also had a lot of real enemies who would stop at nothing to destroy him. And you know that.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
Not to dispute the article, but I don't think it's right to call Nixon glib.
Isn't it saying he is a glib Richard Nixon? As in "richard Nixon, but glib"
Yes, it is. This is the importance of commas, folks.
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2012, 08:42:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Nixon had a habit of seeing enemies that weren't there. And you know that.
Nixon also had a lot of real enemies who would stop at nothing to destroy him. And you know that.
So does everyone.
Gingrich is now the frontrunner nationally.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Ruh-roh.
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2012, 08:42:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Nixon had a habit of seeing enemies that weren't there. And you know that.
Nixon also had a lot of real enemies who would stop at nothing to destroy him. And you know that.
You should stop using him as your avatar. You're not even a US citizen. How'd you like it if people ran around with Pierre Trudeau avatars?
Quote from: Phillip V on January 25, 2012, 12:46:58 AM
Gingrich is now the frontrunner nationally.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
:bleeding:
If we had a national primary, that might mean something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2012, 02:56:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2012, 08:42:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Nixon had a habit of seeing enemies that weren't there. And you know that.
Nixon also had a lot of real enemies who would stop at nothing to destroy him. And you know that.
You should stop using him as your avatar. You're not even a US citizen. How'd you like it if people ran around with Pierre Trudeau avatars?
Nixon was the greatest man of his era. He deserves to be honoured around the world.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2012, 02:56:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2012, 08:42:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2012, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
only exceeding Richard Nixon in personal vendetta asshattery.
What the fuck?
Nixon had a habit of seeing enemies that weren't there. And you know that.
Nixon also had a lot of real enemies who would stop at nothing to destroy him. And you know that.
You should stop using him as your avatar. You're not even a US citizen. How'd you like it if people ran around with Pierre Trudeau avatars?
I'd hate it, but that has nothing to do with people not being Canadian citizens.
Now if people wanted to run around with a Deifenbaker avatar... :w00t:
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2012, 09:44:45 AM
Now if people wanted to run around with a Deifenbaker avatar... :w00t:
Done that.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2012, 09:44:45 AM
I'd hate it, but that has nothing to do with people not being Canadian citizens.
<_< Just watch me.
Only those who voted for him like Trudeau.
and maybe Ontarians.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 23, 2012, 11:10:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 23, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
How the hell is Mr third wife doing so well in these primaries? what happened to the religious right?
They like him because he has the balls to openly what they wish they could get away with.
Considering, he has a nerve to at the same time oppose gay marriage because of "sanctity of marriage" and was one of the most bloodthirsty sharks after Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, I think this just proves that Republican voters are a bunch of racist homophobic scumbags.
Racist? Or are you one of the ones who hold that Clinton was in fact the first black president of the US? :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 25, 2012, 10:34:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2012, 09:44:45 AM
Now if people wanted to run around with a Deifenbaker avatar... :w00t:
Done that.
I think I did that as well for period of time. I also posted a bunch of Dief v Pearson YTMND I found. I don't know why I do things.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2012, 11:44:56 AM
Only those who voted for him like Trudeau.
and maybe Ontarians.
Never was a Doonesbury fan.
Lots of Romney ads on the air now. A couple Newt ones, but nowhere near the same amount. I'd rather be a later primary state, frankly.
The Oregon primary is May 15, hopefully this trainwreck will be decided one way or the other by then and I won't have to see any ads. :yuk:
I've never agreed with a Mark Steyn article so much, but this is very fair:
QuoteThe Man Who Gave Us Newt
By Mark Steyn
January 22, 2012 6:40 P.M.
The nature of this peculiar primary season — the reason it seems at odds with both the 2009–2010 political narrative and the seriousness of the times — was determined by Mitt Romney. Even if you don't mind Romneycare, or the abortion flip-flop, or any of the rest, there's a more basic problem: He's not a natural campaigner, and on the stump he instinctively recoils from any personal connection with the voters. So, in compensation, he's bought himself a bunch of A-list advisers and a lavish campaign. He is, as he likes to say, the only candidate with experience in the private sector. So he knows better than to throw his money away, right? But that's just what he's doing, in big ways and small.
Small: It's a good idea to get that telegenic gal (daughter-in-law?) to stand behind him during the concession speech, but one of those expensive consultants ought to tell her not to look so bored and glassy-eyed as the stiff guy grinds through the same-old-same-old for the umpteenth time. To those watching on TV last night, she looked like we felt.
Big: Why is the stump speech so awful? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it's lethal to him in a way that it wouldn't be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature — as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs. And, when Ron Paul's going on about "fiat money" and Newt's brimming with specifics on everything (he was great on the pipeline last night), Mitt's generalities are awfully condescending: The finely calibrated inoffensiveness is kind of offensive.
And what's with the wind up? The "shining city on the hill"? That's another guy's line — a guy with whom you have had hitherto little connection other than your public repudiation of him back in the Nineties. Can't any of his highly paid honchos write him a campaign slogan that's his own and doesn't sound in his mouth so cheesily anodyne, as if some guy ran a focus-group and this phrase came up with the lowest negatives?
And where, among all the dough he's handing out, is the rapid-response team? Newt's "spontaneous" indignation at John King was carefully crafted by Gingrich himself. By contrast, Mitt has a ton of consultants, and not one of them thought he needed a credible answer on Bain or taxes? For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change.
Mitt's strategy for 2012 as for 2008 was to sit on his lead and run out the clock: Four years ago, that strategy died in New Hampshire; this time round it died one state later. Congratulations! Years ago, I was chit-chatting with Arthur Laurents, the writer of West Side Story and The Way We Were and much else, about some show that was in trouble on the road that he'd been called in to "fix." "The trouble with a bad show," he sighed, "is that you can make it better but you can never make it good." The Romney candidacy is better than it was four years ago, but it's not clear that it's good. Mitt needs to get good real fast: A real speech, real plan, real responses, and real fire in the belly. Does he have it in him?
If I were a member of the Republican elite (which I'm not) I'd wonder if we can draft Daniels (or Bush, or Ryan, or anyone); if not push it to a brokered convention and try and fix it; or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.
QuoteI believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.
Really? There's no way this isn't made up.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 25, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
QuoteI believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.
Really? There's no way this isn't made up.
Agreed, it sounds made up. Mitt Romney isn't capable of emotions like love.
I have noticed that Romney doesn't come across as comfortable with the campaigning part of campaigning. I mean, when he's asked a question about the economy or whatever, he bites right in. But when he's got to attack his opponent or criticize others he seems stilted and falls flat. It just isn't his thing. Newt is way more natural, and obviously the better debater.
It's odd. I don't really care for Romney much at all (less so then for say Gingrich or Santorum), but still think he would make an adequate President. I don't think the other three could do so. I suppose two faced opportunism can actually be useful in governing.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2012, 01:35:39 PM
It's odd. I don't really care for Romney much at all (less so then for say Gingrich or Santorum), but still think he would make an adequate President. I don't think the other three could do so. I suppose two faced opportunism can actually be useful in governing.
Romney strikes me as an excellent manager, just like Obama is an adequate manager. I just find the latter lacking/wrong in leadership (direction, priorities, etc.), and we are not so sure about Romney's leadership. But Romney does have the benefit of having a clean slate.
For example on Obama, the war in Afghanistan has been adequately managed. No disaster. No victory. The timetable for escalation and withdrawal is sensible and politically palatable. However, the whole venture seems ultimately doomed. No matter trying to be moderate, the work is being done on bad fundamentals such as an illiterate society and a horrible Afghan president. We really do not hear a clear end-goal in this decade-long invasion. Thus, a leader might instead decide to go "all in" and commit to decades of security and nation-building. Or he/she might decide on an almost full withdrawal, cutting losses and recognizing the futility.
I have to say that all these republican debates have resulted in a more european style electoral campaign. In most mid size and smaller european countries the campaign is carried on free to air tv where the networks host debates and discussions on the topics. Some countries permit party political broadcasts that network tv is made to carry and political TV and Radio adds are banned.
I don't think the Republican base has the experience to deal with demagogic minority party (3-5%) candidates that appeal to populist attitudes. Europeans can deal with that, though I suspect that Europeans would be completely bewildered by political (and medical for that matter) ads.
Have we talked about Newt's Moon base?
I just sent my absentee ballot in the mail :ph34r:
Since I'm indifferent as to Romney and Gingrich(as a probable Obama voter), I ended up voting for Newt Gingrich, on the theory that I would prefer a prolonged nomination fight, with the (highly unlikely) possibility of a new candidate(Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush?) being selected the convention due to a deadlock. There's a decent chance I would vote for Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush over Obama.
I realize the odds of another candidate coming in are extremely low, but I figured it was better than wasting my ballot all together. Based on the polls, it seems likely that Romney is going to win Florida. Gingrich was leading a bunch of polls that were conducted right before and during the South Carolina primary, but since then Romney has been leading.
Apparently Bob Dole doesn't like Newt much: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289360/dole-goes-nuclear-nro-staff
Meanwhile, Santorum apparently encourages people to stop giving money to universities and colleges, as they "are undermining the very principles of our country every single day." I sure hope that Santorum quote is mostly spin and fabrication, because otherwise it's pretty fucking terrible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2012, 01:01:21 PM
I've never agreed with a Mark Steyn article so much, but this is very fair:
Steyn is hilarious, once you get past the fact that he's Canadian but has a British-sounding accent.
QuoteIf I were a member of the Republican elite (which I'm not) I'd wonder if we can draft Daniels (or Bush, or Ryan, or anyone); if not push it to a brokered convention and try and fix it; or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.
Meh, it's Mitt's turn. Just like McCain & Dole had their turns. The GOP elite seems to favor the guy whose turn it is.
I'll still be okay with Mitt getting the nom. I don't want Gingrich, and I really, really don't want Santorum. But yeah, Daniels would be my dream candidate at this point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2012, 01:01:21 PM
...or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.
Isn't that the same as conceding the general election though? Nobody of any consequence is going to vote for Santorum.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 10:06:06 PM
Extraordinarily Gingrich won a majority of married women :mellow:
That vote was a vote of thanks that they were not married to him
Quote from: stjaba on January 26, 2012, 05:25:43 PM
I just sent my absentee ballot in the mail :ph34r:
Since I'm indifferent as to Romney and Gingrich(as a probable Obama voter), I ended up voting for Newt Gingrich, on the theory that I would prefer a prolonged nomination fight
Ideologue: trendsetter.
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on January 26, 2012, 06:23:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2012, 01:01:21 PM
...or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.
Isn't that the same as conceding the general election though? Nobody of any consequence is going to vote for Santorum.
I'm not sure any of them can, short of an enormous economic catastrophe like, say, an Italian default. I'd rather Santorum who can possibly engage the base (like Gingrich) but won't go mad (unlike Gingrich).
My fear with Mitt is that he'll be seen as the 'electable', 'moderate' candidate forced on the party by the party establishment (in my view he's neither). If he loses then I worry we'll have Rand Paul as candidate in 2016.
Haha, good, good.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 27, 2012, 02:59:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 26, 2012, 06:23:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2012, 01:01:21 PM
...or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.
Isn't that the same as conceding the general election though? Nobody of any consequence is going to vote for Santorum.
I'm not sure any of them can, short of an enormous economic catastrophe like, say, an Italian default. I'd rather Santorum who can possibly engage the base (like Gingrich) but won't go mad (unlike Gingrich).
My fear with Mitt is that he'll be seen as the 'electable', 'moderate' candidate forced on the party by the party establishment (in my view he's neither). If he loses then I worry we'll have Rand Paul as candidate in 2016.
Rand Paul could be a serious problem.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 27, 2012, 02:59:24 AM
My fear with Mitt is that he'll be seen as the 'electable', 'moderate' candidate forced on the party by the party establishment
So Romney 2012 = Dole 1996?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 27, 2012, 02:59:24 AM
My fear with Mitt is that he'll be seen as the 'electable', 'moderate' candidate forced on the party by the party establishment (in my view he's neither).
I think he's both. Of the rest of the candidates I would say only Huntsman (and perhaps Newt if it were possible to pin him down) were more moderate, but none more electable than Mitt.
QuoteIf he loses then I worry we'll have Rand Paul as candidate in 2016.
:w00t:
But seriously, what are you basing that upon? The GOP has a track history of putting up more moderate candidates, regardless of how well that worked in previous elections.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2012, 01:12:31 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html :hmm:
Interesting that they only focused on social conservatism.
Quote from: derspiess on January 27, 2012, 11:27:44 AM
Interesting that they only focused on social conservatism.
Because if they went for fiscal conservatism they would have found the opposite conclusion. -_-
Cain endorses Gingrich: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72113.html
Romney has a high single-digit lead in Florida after reversing previous Newtmentum: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
Yup, he's the candidate Languish has been waiting for. An intellectual who can't admit he's wrong and whose main emotional drives are spite, vengeance and lust.
Yeah, honestly... Newt is probably the primary candidate I've disliked the most since Pat Buchanan. I even disliked John Edwards less than this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/the-strip.html#1
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F01%2F08%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Fthe-strip-slide-G29P%2Fthe-strip-slide-G29P-jumbo.jpg&hash=f758019a82c8f57cd98255c8d4d7d23b78204db7)
Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2012, 07:51:08 AM
Yeah, honestly... Newt is probably the primary candidate I've disliked the most since Pat Buchanan.
A party gets the candidate it deserves.
Only nominating Sarah Palin would've been scarier.
That was probably the dumbest comic I've ever seen linked here.
Romney building double-digit lead in Florida.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html
That cartoonist is a retard.
Cartoons are suppose to be funny. Or at least biting.
I always enjoy references to 2001.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2012, 06:42:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
At least if Gingrich got the nomination, it would make it a really easy decision come voting time. What a fucking asshole.
Yup, he's the candidate Languish has been waiting for. An intellectual who can't admit he's wrong and whose main emotional drives are spite, vengeance and lust.
And evil. Whereas all my spite, vengeance, and lust is righteous.
Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2012, 07:51:08 AM
Yeah, honestly... Newt is probably the primary candidate I've disliked the most since Pat Buchanan. I even disliked John Edwards less than this guy.
I'm pretty sure he's the only one working towards making my life goal of a shopping spree on the moon - a reality. :angry:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 29, 2012, 11:54:31 AM
That was probably the dumbest comic I've ever seen linked here.
Disagree. The worst were those dinosaur online comic strips* that Scipio(I think) posted on here a LONG time ago, and that Fireblade rightly mocked in a winning post of the month entry. (Long memory I know).
*e.g.: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qwantz.com%2Fcomics%2Fcomic2-1994.png&hash=f6d5142107e0fe3f7937c03d8f8afa8c896c90e7)
TOASTER
Surly we have not all forgotten Chick tracts.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 29, 2012, 06:19:15 PM
Surly we have not all forgotten Chick tracts.
The above is much worse.
Quote from: stjaba on January 29, 2012, 05:12:35 PM
Disagree. The worst were those dinosaur online comic strips* that Scipio(I think) posted on here a LONG time ago, and that Fireblade rightly mocked in a winning post of the month entry. (Long memory I know).
The one you picked out is better than the Newt strip.
Both cartoons suck, however, the dino one reminds me of scipio's being destroyed by the Blade.
I love Newt's made-for-Florida attack on Romney who, as Governor, eliminated serving Kosher food under Medicare. Never has attack and state been so perfectly aligned.
Newt was for Obama health plan in '09
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-expressed-support-for-obama-health-care-plan-112786.html
So he's sane?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2012, 12:14:00 PM
So he's sane?
That'll hurt him more than anything else.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2012, 12:14:00 PM
So he's sane?
Don't be silly. Are very good reasons to oppose Obama's health plan, although I doubt that many Republicans oppose it for those reasons.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 29, 2012, 11:54:31 AM
That was probably the dumbest comic I've ever seen linked here.
I agree. That's no mean feat, either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2012, 09:06:32 AM
I love Newt's made-for-Florida attack on Romney who, as Governor, eliminated serving Kosher food under Medicare.
The faster he can kill off those old Jews with rotting pork, the quicker he can baptise them in Salt Lake. ;)
Quote
WASHINGTON—Saying he came bearing an important message from the past, a stranger from the year 1998 appeared on the Capitol steps Thursday and urged voters not to elect Newt Gingrich president in 2012. "In the late 20th century, Newt Gingrich is a complete disgrace!" said the time-traveling man, warning Americans that 14 years in the not-so-distant past, Gingrich becomes the only speaker in the history of the House of Representatives to be found guilty on ethics charges, and is later forced to resign. "In my time, he shuts down the federal government for 28 days because his feelings get hurt over having to sit at the back of Air Force One. Gingrich gets our president impeached for lying about marital infidelities when, at the same time, Gingrich himself is engaged in his own extramarital affairs. And for God's sake, he divorced his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Won't anyone listen to me?!?" When asked about Donald Trump, the time-traveler said he had no information on the man, as no one from 1998 cared about a "washed-up fake millionaire."
Guess the source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/time-traveler-from-the-year-1998-warns-nation-not,27178/)? :P
Santorum should drop out shortly IMO.
Quote from: Florida Primary
Exit polls have the breakout like this
Mitt Romney 49
Gingrich 33
Santorum 11
Paul 6.
Nevada prediction:
Romney
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Paul
Gingrich
Santorum
Gingrich isn't even on the ballot in Missouri.
Well, that's pretty much the ballgame, isn't it?
At this rate it'll definitely be over by Super Tuesday if not sooner.
Well now, looks like Romney will be the next President. ;)
Well, he'll be in a prime position to do Viagra commercials at least.
I was hoping for a big long battle to eliminate the weak.
I was hoping for a big long battle to eliminate the strong. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2012, 07:20:06 PM
Santorum should drop out shortly IMO.
Excellent. He is a massive douchebag.
Unfortunately they all are, and they can't ALL drop out, can they? :(
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 10:34:56 PM
I was hoping for a big long battle to eliminate the strong. :(
I did my duty.
It really is a shame that Newt won't win the nomination; it would have been an all-time low for the GOP. It would have been beautiful.
Honestly, I just understand why he just doesn't come out and call President Obama a nigger. He practically has in every other way; why not just say it?
The Republican Party needs Zombie Eisenhower :(
I like the cropping of Mitt's most recent quote. :D
If Santorum drops it might become a race again.
An interview with a grandson of president Tyler!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72089.html
So, Lyon Gardiner Tyler was a freaky freak?
The country needs Zombie Buchanan.
PRESIDENT IN 2016:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F17%2FRahm_Emanuel%252C_official_photo_portrait_color.jpg%2F320px-Rahm_Emanuel%252C_official_photo_portrait_color.jpg&hash=8843d0df28a87ceb3f2c7351baca29e5bee33841)
Sweet :)
Quote from: Zoupa on February 02, 2012, 12:43:44 AM
Sweet :)
A smart, fiery Chicago Jew in the White House? PERFECTION
Quote from: fahdiz on February 02, 2012, 12:39:07 AM
PRESIDENT IN 2016:
:w00t:
Or:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.syracuse.com%2Fnews%2Fphoto%2F2010-03-02-andrew-cuomo-apjpg-9e2f3e57a904f291_large.jpg&hash=a7121194dc6b4f3cd1aa0e3be08474f283419ed3)
2016 is gonna SUCK.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2012, 10:34:56 PM
I was hoping for a big long battle to eliminate the strong. :(
There is no strong in this race.
The President in 2016 is going to be a large holding company. ExxonMobil Corporation probably satisfies the age requirement.
Now that corporations are fully legal persons, why not be more efficient and just cut out the middle man?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2012, 03:42:54 PM
The President in 2016 is going to be a large holding company. ExxonMobil Corporation probably satisfies the age requirement.
Now that corporations are fully legal persons, why not be more efficient and just cut out the middle man?
Meh.
Not to rehash the discussion, but why do I wind up either disagreeing entirely with other leftists (center-facing as you may be), or holding views far more extreme than they do? :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2012, 03:49:37 PM
Not to rehash the discussion, but why do I wind up either disagreeing entirely with other leftists (center-facing as you may be), or holding views far more extreme than they do? :lol:
Leninism is a disease that is hard to cure completely.
Minsky is an educated Jew. Like Karl Marx.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2012, 04:00:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2012, 03:49:37 PM
Not to rehash the discussion, but why do I wind up either disagreeing entirely with other leftists (center-facing as you may be), or holding views far more extreme than they do? :lol:
Leninism is a disease that is hard to cure completely.
Yeah, Lenin was a real free speech absolutist. :P
I guess it's my qualified libertarian streak, which is usually trivial here because it ordinarily only comes up in the context of the individual, and we're all generally pretty libertarian in that regard. (Well, the Americans are anyway. The Euros are of course crypto-fascists to a man.)
Then there's the military adventurism, but that's actually classically left; it's nothing more than the spectre of Vietnam and Euroweeniness that animates the unwitting supporters of dictatorships.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
Yeah, Lenin was all about freedom of speech. :P
You were always free to say what you wanted under Lenin; and the Party was always free to line you against the wall and shoot you for counter-revolutionary behavior.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
it's nothing more than the spectre of Vietnam and Euroweeniness that animates the unwitting supporters of dictatorships.
I don't know. I think it's based on a realistic view of the fundamental weakness of America.
Things are not looking good for Paul and his "caucus-strategy". Romney will handily win Nevada tomorrow as expected, but Paul is trailing badly in third place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_republican_presidential_primary-1768.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_republican_presidential_primary-1768.html)
Romney'll smash Nevada. But it's worth remembering that Paul's support in Nevada last time was double what the polls were projecting. That poll projects that Paul will get the same as he did last time round. So far, in every state, he's at least doubled his support. So I don't know if I'd read too much into that. I'd expect him, at least, to do better than in 2008 though he probably won't get double.
Paul's performance in Nevada last time was remarkably better than it was most everywhere else. Expecting him to double that is a bit much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2012, 11:46:34 AM
Romney'll smash Nevada. But it's worth remembering that Paul's support in Nevada last time was double what the polls were projecting. That poll projects that Paul will get the same as he did last time round. So far, in every state, he's at least doubled his support. So I don't know if I'd read too much into that. I'd expect him, at least, to do better than in 2008 though he probably won't get double.
It's all over. Romney wins by default as the other candidates have disqualified themselves.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2012, 01:14:22 PM
It's all over. Romney wins by default as the other candidates have disqualified themselves.
That was true even before Iowa.
I am glad that Romney got a thumping in Iowa and South Carolina. Hopefully, he later reaches out to bring the Paultards in rather than futilely bend over for the evangelicals.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2012, 01:14:22 PM
It's all over. Romney wins by default as the other candidates have disqualified themselves.
Almost certainly. It's the Sherlock campaign, when you've elminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable must be the candidate. But I don't think that means the primary's actually over yet.
Paul will run to the end because that's what he does. He did last time.
And it's very difficult to see a way back for Gingrich or Santorum. Though Santorum probably thinks this is his best chance. Still no-one really loves Romney and Gingrich is weak. So I expect him to stay in for a while. Not least because he's on the Missouri ballot, which Gingrich isn't, and that's the first real big primary coming up.
If I was Gingrich (and thank the Lord I'm not) I'd go out in a blaze of destructive negative campaigning after what the Romney campaign's done to him in Iowa and Florida. Gingrich could just quit. But I think, as Nate Silver described it, he may stay on as the Jerry Brown to Mitt's eventual Clinton.
QuotePaul's performance in Nevada last time was remarkably better than it was most everywhere else. Expecting him to double that is a bit much.
Yeah. As I say I think that's a bit hopeful. But he got 13% last time and given that he's got over 20% in, I think Iowa, New Hampshire and South CarolinaI'd expect him to maybe do that well. Especially because Nevada and the West in general seems more friendly territory for Paul.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2012, 01:23:00 PM
Paul will run to the end because that's what he does. He did last time.
Yeah he does not actually want to win the Nom I don't think. He is in it to bring attention to and get support for the libertarian fringe of the Republican Party.
I think he's the Libertarian John the Baptist readying the GOP for his son's campaign in 2016.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2012, 01:36:52 PM
I think he's the Libertarian John the Baptist readying the GOP for his son's campaign in 2016.
Perhaps, but maybe later. Paul's efforts have never been intended to get him to the Presidency. He knows he'd never make it. It's to raise awareness of his "issues", which he has been quite successful at the last two attempts. Gold Buggery and other assorted lunacy is becoming mainstream in the GOP. Other candidates are starting to pick it up. Maybe not this time, but eventually we are going to get a candidate who can win who vows to "End the Fed". Then we are well and truly fucked.
I do think it is kinda funny that peace and civil liberties are what gets called insane but gold standards and ending income tax is becoming boringly mainstream.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BP274A_POLJO_G_20120203180603.jpg&hash=458d17937aa9f15c3ef0bfbf7e47419a7969db1c)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577201382359559586.html
Why's Obama got to be the black line?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 12:04:11 AM
Why's Obama got to be the black line?
No shit. Don't think I didn't catch that one too.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2012, 04:26:57 PM
I do think it is kinda funny that peace and civil liberties are what gets called insane but gold standards and ending income tax is becoming boringly mainstream.
His "peace" policies which involve the US retreating from almost every military base and leaving every alliance is pretty crazy in my book.
The Tea Party Jesus tumblr is pretty fun.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2012, 01:36:52 PM
I think he's the Libertarian John the Baptist readying the GOP for his son's campaign in 2016.
I can't wait for Ru to run. :cool:
Santorum fails to qualify for Indiana ballot
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/santorum-fails-to-qualify-for-indiana-ballot-vows-113437.html
That might be more interesting if there was a chance that anybody but Romney could win the nomination.
Hopefully Paul places second in Nevada tonight.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 04, 2012, 02:30:53 PM
Hopefully Paul places second first in Nevada tonight.
:)
Quote from: Phillip V on February 04, 2012, 02:30:53 PM
Hopefully Paul places second in Nevada tonight.
I think that's expected. Nevada seems like territory for him and Romney alone.
I think it would be a good move to have open primaries only in those years when both parties' nominations are contested.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 04:54:03 PM
I think it would be a good move to have open primaries only in those years when both parties' nominations are contested.
Agreed.
Strangely enough, right after posting that I heard Buddy Roemer on CNN talking about his campaign to win the Democratic nomination for president.
I think Roemer's running for Republican nomination :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2012, 06:39:26 PM
I think Roemer's running for Republican nomination :mellow:
Ah. He was ranting about Wall Street owning the White House so I figured him for looney left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 06:41:52 PM
Ah. He was ranting about Wall Street owning the White House so I figured him for looney left.
Oh no. The whole point of his run is campaign finance reform.
Personally I quite like him. I wanted him and Johnson (after all their backgrounds about as credible as Romney or Huntsman or Mike Gravel who got to debate last year) to surge at some point, but they weren't even allowed to debate :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 06:41:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2012, 06:39:26 PM
I think Roemer's running for Republican nomination :mellow:
Ah. He was ranting about Wall Street owning the White House so I figured him for looney left.
Scip likes him.
What's the deal with all the people rooting for Paul? Am I not giving you people enough crazy?
Paul is the lesser evil in the race since Johnson and Huntsman dropped.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2012, 06:47:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 06:41:52 PM
Ah. He was ranting about Wall Street owning the White House so I figured him for looney left.
Oh no. The whole point of his run is campaign finance reform.
Personally I quite like him. I wanted him and Johnson (after all their backgrounds about as credible as Romney or Huntsman or Mike Gravel who got to debate last year) to surge at some point, but they weren't even allowed to debate :(
While his anti-Wall Street stance is admirable, like Paul he has too many goofy anti-NATO/pro-isolationism stuff going on.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2012, 07:17:37 PM
What's the deal with all the people rooting for Paul? Am I not giving you people enough crazy?
Stoner vote. Morons.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 04, 2012, 08:18:15 PM
Paul is the lesser evil in the race since Johnson and Huntsman dropped.
Uh. Negative. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 10:01:44 PM
Uh. Negative. :huh:
You just don't see it because you've been brainwashed by the Military/Industrial Complex. :ph34r:
The results are coming in quite slowly.
Minnesota votes this Tuesday, and the only poll shows close to a 4-way tie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mn/minnesota_republican_presidential_primary-1747.html
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 12:04:11 AM
Why's Obama got to be the black line?
WHERE ALL THE UNEMPLOYED HONKEYS AT?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2012, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2012, 07:17:37 PM
What's the deal with all the people rooting for Paul? Am I not giving you people enough crazy?
Stoner vote. Morons.
That's what I'm thinking. Most of Paul's ideas are really bad, he's prone to conspiracy theories, and has never demonstration anything resembling the correct skill set required for being President. Hell, the man can't remember who wrote his own newsletter.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 12:47:00 PM
That's what I'm thinking. Most of Paul's ideas are really bad, he's prone to conspiracy theories, and has never demonstration anything resembling the correct skill set required for being President. Hell, the man can't remember who wrote his own newsletter.
:rolleyes: Reagan probably couldn't remember quite a bit more than that, and he was still the best president this world (or maybe even the whole universe) has had.
He's also termed out and dead. So I don't think he'll make a good showing.
Personally I think that Reagan like Bush deliberately played up their folksy, non-intellectual persona. I suspect that both men were much smarter then they let on and preferred to have potential opponents and critics underestimate them.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
He's also termed out and dead. So I don't think he'll make a good showing.
Personally I think that Reagan like Bush deliberately played up their folksy, non-intellectual persona. I suspect that both men were much smarter then they let on and preferred to have potential opponents and critics underestimate them.
I definitely agree about Reagan. He may not have been book-smart, but he was definitely intelligent, and had all the right political instincts. I don't agree about Bush, I think W was a legit moron, at least by presidential standards. He was elected not because he was underestimated, but because 49%-51% of the country was in a mood to have a moron as a president.
An article in the NYT on possible Democratic presidential contenders in 2016 mentioned Elizabeth Warren. That would be less than ossum.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 02:16:36 PM
An article in the NYT on possible Democratic presidential contenders in 2016 mentioned Elizabeth Warren. That would be less than ossum.
Let her win the Senate seat first. And I would disagree about the awesomeness part: just the fact that Warren is running for political office is due to Republicans doing the bidding of their oligarch masters. If that act of shameless corrupt lobbying results in Warren becoming a president in 2016, then it would be the most awesome backfire in politics since picking Teddy Roosevelt as a VP candidate.
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2012, 03:41:34 PM
Let her win the Senate seat first. And I would disagree about the awesomeness part: just the fact that Warren is running for political office is due to Republicans doing the bidding of their oligarch masters. If that act of shameless corrupt lobbying results in Warren becoming a president in 2016, then it would be the most awesome backfire in politics since picking Teddy Roosevelt as a VP candidate.
I guess we'll have to disagree. Political irony combined with economic suicide is not my idea of ossum.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 03:55:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2012, 03:41:34 PM
Let her win the Senate seat first. And I would disagree about the awesomeness part: just the fact that Warren is running for political office is due to Republicans doing the bidding of their oligarch masters. If that act of shameless corrupt lobbying results in Warren becoming a president in 2016, then it would be the most awesome backfire in politics since picking Teddy Roosevelt as a VP candidate.
I guess we'll have to disagree. Political irony combined with economic suicide is not my idea of ossum.
Well, I don't assume that her political ideas will lead to economic suicide, obviously. I think casino capitalism protected by bought and paid for with free speech politicians has a lot going for it when it comes to economic suicide.
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Well, I don't assume that her political ideas will lead to economic suicide, obviously. I think casino capitalism protected by bought and paid for with free speech politicians has a lot going for it when it comes to economic suicide.
The way you put those two sentences right next to each other like that suggests you see a connection between casino capitalism and Elizabeth Warren's regulatory ideas.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:07:50 PMPersonally I think that Reagan like Bush deliberately played up their folksy, non-intellectual persona. I suspect that both men were much smarter then they let on and preferred to have potential opponents and critics underestimate them.
Reagan may have been folksy, but I wouldn't have categorized him as a non-intellectual persona, given the breadth of his entire political career. Maybe not a policy wonk, but as we know about organizational cultures, big picture leaders are certainly not necessarily "non-intellectual".
Now Dubya, on the other hand, that fucker was as moronic as advertised.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Well, I don't assume that her political ideas will lead to economic suicide, obviously. I think casino capitalism protected by bought and paid for with free speech politicians has a lot going for it when it comes to economic suicide.
The way you put those two sentences right next to each other like that suggests you see a connection between casino capitalism and Elizabeth Warren's regulatory ideas.
That suggestion is misleading. I don't think of just regulations when I think of Warren, and I don't think you do either, or the bit about economic suicide would be overly hyperbolic even for such a statement. I think of the economic ideology that she is promoting on the campaign trail, and her economic ideology is in direct contrast to the casino capitalism that has been in power in the last decade, if not two or three.
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2012, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
He's also termed out and dead. So I don't think he'll make a good showing.
Personally I think that Reagan like Bush deliberately played up their folksy, non-intellectual persona. I suspect that both men were much smarter then they let on and preferred to have potential opponents and critics underestimate them.
I definitely agree about Reagan. He may not have been book-smart, but he was definitely intelligent, and had all the right political instincts. I don't agree about Bush, I think W was a legit moron, at least by presidential standards. He was elected not because he was underestimated, but because 49%-51% of the country was in a mood to have a moron as a president.
Well he was elected twice. I think Bush was smarter then we thought, and played us as fools. I suspect that his tendency to say stupid things was genuine, but smart people do that as well. I'm not saying he's the smartest president ever, but I don't think he's one of the dumber ones either. Articles written after his Presidency have given me different opinion of the man.
I think it can be very advantageous to get your opponents to misunderestimate you. See: Claudius.
He isn't stupid. His just plain folksy manner won him the Presidency whilst Gore's roboman impression turned people off.
I don't regret voting for W twice. Al Gore? Tipper was attached. Kerry? Eggplant wife.
W? inoffensive wife.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2012, 07:24:21 PM
I don't regret voting for W twice. Al Gore? Tipper was attached. Kerry? Eggplant wife.
W? inoffensive wife.
CdM vehicular homidice joke incoming!
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2012, 05:22:10 PM
That suggestion is misleading. I don't think of just regulations when I think of Warren, and I don't think you do either, or the bit about economic suicide would be overly hyperbolic even for such a statement. I think of the economic ideology that she is promoting on the campaign trail, and her economic ideology is in direct contrast to the casino capitalism that has been in power in the last decade, if not two or three.
Her economic ideology is risk avoidance? Odd that I've never heard her mention it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 03:55:00 PM
I guess we'll have to disagree. Political irony combined with economic suicide is not my idea of ossum.
I think that's a wee bit over the top. The truth is there's a whole gulf between the left-wing of the Democrats and economic suicide.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 03:55:00 PM
I guess we'll have to disagree. Political irony combined with economic suicide is not my idea of ossum.
I think that's a wee bit over the top. The truth is there's a whole gulf between the left-wing of the Democrats and economic suicide.
Not to the GOP. Anything that doesn't involve tax cuts is economic suicide.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 08:08:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 03:55:00 PM
I guess we'll have to disagree. Political irony combined with economic suicide is not my idea of ossum.
I think that's a wee bit over the top. The truth is there's a whole gulf between the left-wing of the Democrats and economic suicide.
Not to the GOP. Anything that doesn't involve tax cuts for the rich is economic suicide.
FYP. Tax cuts for middle and lower classes are also economic suicide.
I don't see how you fixed my post. :huh: You altered it, then disagreed with it your alteration. I. R. Confused.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 01:05:56 AM
I don't see how you fixed my post. :huh: You altered it, then disagreed with it your alteration. I. R. Confused.
Yeah, I screwed up. It should be "tax cuts for the middle class" in the FYP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2012, 03:55:00 PM
Political irony combined with economic suicide is not my idea of ossum.
Could you be more specific?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 01:39:47 PM
Could you be more specific?
Any loan that the borrower can't or doesn't want to repay was the result of fraud and should be forgiven. Any banking fee that the customer doesn't like is unfair and should be reduced or eliminated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 01:46:18 PM
Any loan that the borrower can't or doesn't want to repay was the result of fraud and should be forgiven. Any banking fee that the customer doesn't like is unfair and should be reduced or eliminated.
I don't know what the latter is about. On the former, she advocates loan forgiveness through the bankruptcy system, which is what it was designed for.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
On the former, she advocates loan forgiveness through the bankruptcy system, which is what it was designed for.
She advocates loan foregiveness and transfer of the collateral.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 01:54:11 PM
She advocates loan foregiveness and transfer of the collateral.
That's pretty vague; it is missing a subject, an object and a bunch of adjectives.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
That's pretty vague; it is missing a subject, an object and a bunch of adjectives.
What subject, object, and bunch of adjectives is it missing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 01:54:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
On the former, she advocates loan forgiveness through the bankruptcy system, which is what it was designed for.
She advocates loan foregiveness and transfer of the collateral.
The US government has advocated loan forgiveness for decades. If it's good enough for Bolivia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua to the tune of $3.5 billion, it should be good enough for US citizens.
Ah, I get it; debt forgiveness to other countries is OK when a GOPtard does it; for US citizens, it's secular-socialism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2012, 02:58:48 PM
The US government has advocated loan forgiveness for decades. If it's good enough for Bolivia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua to the tune of $3.5 billion, it should be good enough for US citizens.
Ah, I get it; debt forgiveness to other countries is OK when a GOPtard does it; for US citizens, it's secular-socialism.
It may very well be good enough for US citizens, but we need to be aware of the price. Whenever you make it more difficult to collect money owed, you raise interest rates and reduce loan availability.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
That's pretty vague; it is missing a subject, an object and a bunch of adjectives.
What subject, object, and bunch of adjectives is it missing?
Who is foregiving what loans made to whom, and under what circumstances and what terms?
What collateral is being transferred, how is being transferred, from who to who, how is it being done etc?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2012, 02:58:48 PM
Ah, I get it; debt forgiveness to other countries is OK when a GOPtard does it; for US citizens, it's secular-socialism.
You're not that obtuse, what gives?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 03:10:16 PM
Who is foregiving what loans made to whom, and under what circumstances and what terms?
What collateral is being transferred, how is being transferred, from who to who, how is it being done etc?
The evil socialist-secular administration of Elizabeth Warren is forcing the Righteous and Virtuous Bank Holding Company to forgive part of the home loan made to Deadbeat Borrower and to transfer the collateral of [home] to Deadbeat Borrower.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
The evil socialist-secular administration of Elizabeth Warren is forcing the Righteous and Virtuous Bank Holding Company to forgive part of the home loan made to Deadbeat Borrower and to transfer the collateral of [home] to Deadbeat Borrower.
Somehow I suspect Ms. Warren would explain her proposals a bit differently.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 03:23:48 PM
Somehow I suspect Ms. Warren would explain her proposals a bit differently.
Yeah, she would sound a lot more like Seedy. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
The evil socialist-secular administration of Elizabeth Warren is forcing the Righteous and Virtuous Bank Holding Company to forgive part of the home loan made to Deadbeat Borrower and to transfer the collateral of [home] to Deadbeat Borrower.
Somehow I suspect Ms. Warren would explain her proposals a bit differently.
Sounds okay to me, but what about student loans?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
Sounds okay to me, but what about student loans?
You'd be in much better shape if the US Dep of Ed hadn't taken over all student lending.
You'd be in much better shape if there were no student loans, because then you wouldn't have gotten your useless and antisocial degree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 03:06:37 PM
Whenever you make it more difficult to collect money owed, you raise interest rates and reduce loan availability.
Maybe, maybe not.
A proposal for partial principal reduction now has no effect on future loans, and thus in itself should not effect either present interest rates or loan availabilty.
The only theory on which it would have an effect is if it leads lenders to believe that it is likely to be repeated in the future and thus will have some impact on their assessment on the predicted future cash flow of the loan.
But the counter to that is that the reasoning behind a general principal reduction program is that if adopted on a national basis, it will free up the frozen housing market, improving collateral quality and getting rid of a debt overhang that is strangling the overall economy, which are things that benefit lenders and enhances expected cash flow returns on loans generally.
The net effect on interest rates and lending depends on which of these factors predominates. My own anecdotal experience and "gut" is that many lenders have pretty short memories and that any residual negative effect on lender confidence will evaporate quickly in the next upturn.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 03:46:09 PM
A proposal for partial principal reduction now has no effect on future loans, and thus in itself should not effect either present interest rates or loan availabilty.
I thought you said she was talking about making pack downs part of the bankruptcy law. That by definition is pretty enduring.
Loan forgiveness can be a reasonable alternative to either a crippling debt load, or foreclosure.
Joan: While you're at it, please explain how forgiving principal improves the collateral quality (i.e. raises the price) on that particular house.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2012, 04:04:48 PM
Loan forgiveness can be a reasonable alternative to either a crippling debt load, or foreclosure.
MORAL HAZARD!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 03:53:55 PM
I thought you said she was talking about making pack downs part of the bankruptcy law. That by definition is pretty enduring.
No the only thing I could recall is that a few years back she resisted proposed creditor friendly amendments to the bankruptcy laws that were being pushed by the credit card industry.
QuoteJoan: While you're at it, please explain how forgiving principal improves the collateral quality (i.e. raises the price) on that particular house.
Seems like DGuller already gave most of that answer. First it avoids foreclosures, which when concentrated are crippling for housing prices. Second, by pulling the equity above water, it frees up the possibility for transactions and gives the home owners proper incentives to maintain the property. All of which is good for housing prices.
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
How does this reinflate the bubble? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2012, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
How does this reinflate the bubble? :huh:
Thats tricky, the nips tries effectively negative interest rates, that didn't work.
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2012, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
How does this reinflate the bubble? :huh:
Thats tricky, the nips tries effectively negative interest rates, that didn't work.
If I were you, I'd rush to the nearest hospital with a dedicated stroke unit.
:D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 04:58:13 PM
No the only thing I could recall is that a few years back she resisted proposed creditor friendly amendments to the bankruptcy laws that were being pushed by the credit card industry.
You yourself a page back or so said she advocates loan foregiveness as part of bankruptcy. Am I missing some key point here?
Most bankruptcies do involve loan forgiveness, after a fashion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 06:53:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 04:58:13 PM
No the only thing I could recall is that a few years back she resisted proposed creditor friendly amendments to the bankruptcy laws that were being pushed by the credit card industry.
You yourself a page back or so said she advocates loan foregiveness as part of bankruptcy. Am I missing some key point here?
Yes. Individual bankruptcies in the US amost always involve forgiveness of loans. that has been so for many years now.
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
The plan is to put a floor on the crash and provide a basis for recovery that would make banks more interested in making a 15-30 year loan commitment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 07:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
The plan is to put a floor on the crash and provide a basis for recovery that would make banks more interested in making a 15-30 year loan commitment.
Wouldn't it be better if the mortgaged properties were forgiven enough debt so that they were no longer underwater but to retain the bulk of the loan, or is that what we're talking about here?
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 07:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 06:15:45 PM
So the plan is to reinflate the housing bubble?
The plan is to put a floor on the crash and provide a basis for recovery that would make banks more interested in making a 15-30 year loan commitment.
Wouldn't it be better if the mortgaged properties were forgiven enough debt so that they were no longer underwater but to retain the bulk of the loan, or is that what we're talking about here?
It's hard to know what Yi is talking about, but that's what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of something functionally similar to a short sale to the current owners.
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
Wouldn't it be better if the mortgaged properties were forgiven enough debt so that they were no longer underwater but to retain the bulk of the loan, or is that what we're talking about here?
I think so.
I don't know whether that is what Warren is proposing or indeed even if she is proposing anything about this at all. My knowledge of her is that she is a bankruptcy and commercial law expert
who got sucked into some TARP oversight committee.
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
Wouldn't it be better if the mortgaged properties were forgiven enough debt so that they were no longer underwater but to retain the bulk of the loan, or is that what we're talking about here?
I think this is like what Obama proposed based on the ideas of one of Romney's economic advisors. Basically his argument is that the extremely low interest rates haven't had as much effect as they should because of the amount of people with negative equity. They can't take advantage of the lower interest rates and that's holding the economy back. The policy is some way of allowing people who are paying their mortgages to refinance at current, lower, interest rates. It seems an interesting idea to me, but it's not from Warren.
Loan forgiveness isn't that new of an idea in general. One thing that always puzzled me is why banks are so adamnant about foreclosing and kicking people out. Yes, they're the creditors, and they get the whole house after a default. Why won't they renegotiate with the current owners rather than let the house that they now own rot or go at fire-sale prices? They're losing money either way, surely in many cases they will lose less when they don't kick the current occupants to the curb?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 07:29:33 PM
Yes. Individual bankruptcies in the US amost always involve forgiveness of loans. that has been so for many years now.
A number of people have been advocating changes to the bankruptcy laws so that home mortgages can be packed down. As things stand they can't, for the simple reason that the home covered by that mortgage is a protected asset in bankruptcy.
Now if Warren is not among those advocating this change, I stand corrected.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2012, 09:34:56 PM
I think this is like what Obama proposed based on the ideas of one of Romney's economic advisors. Basically his argument is that the extremely low interest rates haven't had as much effect as they should because of the amount of people with negative equity. They can't take advantage of the lower interest rates and that's holding the economy back. The policy is some way of allowing people who are paying their mortgages to refinance at current, lower, interest rates. It seems an interesting idea to me, but it's not from Warren.
What Obama proposed recently is that people with underwater loans (who are current on their payments) be made eligible for low interest FHA loans.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Loan forgiveness isn't that new of an idea in general. One thing that always puzzled me is why banks are so adamnant about foreclosing and kicking people out. Yes, they're the creditors, and they get the whole house after a default. Why won't they renegotiate with the current owners rather than let the house that they now own rot or go at fire-sale prices? They're losing money either way, surely in many cases they will lose less when they don't kick the current occupants to the curb?
Moral hazard. :P
Borrowers who are not in default would ask for the same deal, and if foregiveness were made obligatory it would create a perverse incentive for borrowers to default and lower their principal amounts.
Santorum going into today's Minnesota contest with a 9-point lead.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mn/minnesota_republican_presidential_primary-1747.html
If I'm not mistaken, Minnesooooota is holding a non-binding straw poll.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2012, 08:55:44 AM
A number of people have been advocating changes to the bankruptcy laws so that home mortgages can be packed down.
Haven't heard of this.
Tonight's Santorum's night. :outback: :pope: :osama:
:w00t:
State Gingrich Paul Romney Santorum reporting
02/07 MO - 12.0% 25.3% 55.3% 89%
02/07 MN 10.7% 27.1% 16.5% 45.4% 47%
02/07 CO 21.4% 9.8% 18.9% 49.6% 7%
Dang.
This is awesome. We could see a real convention floor fight.
What makes you think that?
I'm surprised that Santorum's made a comeback.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
I'm surprised that Santorum's made a comeback.
I know he hasn't actually gained anything in Missouri. I wonder if any of the other state's elections had some meaning.
Whenever Ron Paul speaks he reminds me of some lovable kooky professor who pontificates to his students between lectures. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 11:15:31 PM
I know he hasn't actually gained anything in Missouri. I wonder if any of the other state's elections had some meaning.
No, I think they're non-binding, but I could be wrong. But then so's Iowa.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 07, 2012, 11:16:09 PM
Whenever Ron Paul speaks he reminds me of some lovable kooky professor who pontificates to his students between lectures. :lol:
Yeah. I think it's a huge part of his attraction :)
Edit: I always love and am confused by his monetary stuff being his biggest applause line :lol: :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2012, 11:17:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 11:15:31 PM
I know he hasn't actually gained anything in Missouri. I wonder if any of the other state's elections had some meaning.
No, I think they're non-binding, but I could be wrong. But then so's Iowa.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/missouri
Yeah, it's non-binding. The real caucus is on March 17. A whole month in which anything can happen.
2012 Caucus Process
Delegate Allocation: After the national Republican Party instituted new rules that would penalize states for holding primaries before March, the Missouri Republican Party switched to a caucus system for selecting their delegates, making the Feb. 7 primary a nonbinding event. The state's delegates will be selected at district conventions in April and the state convention in June. The March 17 county caucuses will select delegates to attend both of those conventions.Quote
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 07, 2012, 11:16:09 PM
Whenever Ron Paul speaks he reminds me of some lovable kooky professor who pontificates to his students between lectures. :lol:
Yeah. I think it's a huge part of his attraction :)
Edit: I always love and am confused by his monetary stuff being his biggest applause line :lol: :blink:
I really like Ron Paul. I actually do. I would never in my life vote for him, but I actually do like the guy. Crazy, but fun-crazy. He'd be great here on Languish.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 07, 2012, 11:26:16 PM
I really like Ron Paul. I actually do. I would never in my life vote for him, but I actually do like the guy. Crazy, but fun-crazy. He'd be great here on Languish.
Agreed. And I think he's such a nice contrast with most of the other candidates. As I mentioned a while ago my favourite thing about him is his walk onto the stage during a debate. It's this old man shuffle with a hesitant wave to the crowd. It's so much more human than the alpha male posing of, say, Perry or Romney and so much more charming.
God Romney is really, really poor tonight.
Keep in mind that McCain did not win any of these states (except narrowly Missouri) in 2008. Nevertheless, it is a disappointing reminder that social conservatives still reject Romney (or now see him as the "moderate" that needs to be stopped). Romney handily won Colorado and Minnesota (and narrowly lost Missouri) four years ago.
I guess one guy was excited enough to jizz something blue on Romney.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 07, 2012, 11:44:42 PM
Romney handily won Colorado and Minnesota (and narrowly lost Missouri) four years ago.
I think the problem is that the more people see of Romney the less they want to vote for him. It's true of the GOP primary voters, even in places he'd previously done well in, and I think it'll be true of the general election voter. He is a dreadful candidate who can only win by massively outspending and slurring his opponents. Aside from that he just makes a Ken doll look animated :(
It's just a shame, for the Republicans, that there's not really many better options and that they couldn't convince someone else to run.
Edit: Which is odd because Romney's dad sounds like a 1960s Biden. Apparently he was very loose-limbed, charming and gregarious on the campaign trail. One observer described watching him campaign being like watching a duck make love to a football. When Romney was running for Senate apparently his best few days were the ones when he took his dad's advice and stopped listening to consultants and loosen up. Sadly his dad's not here to give that advice now :(
Edit: Romney gave what's probably the worst speech I've seen him give. By contrast I just saw chunks of Santorum's and it looked the best I've seen a Republican give this election. What's novel is that this time people were listening to Santorum so it could be a big help for him.
Looks like Santorum might win Colorado too
32% in and it's 42.2-28.4%
Or as Austrian newsreader just called it: Colo-ray-do.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
I'm surprised that Santorum's made a comeback.
With santorum you always get your cum back, just not in any usable form. :(
:x
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
I'm surprised that Santorum's made a comeback.
With santorum you always get your cum back, just not in any usable form. :(
...says you.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 07, 2012, 11:44:42 PM
Keep in mind that McCain did not win any of these states (except narrowly Missouri) in 2008. Nevertheless, it is a disappointing reminder that social conservatives still reject Romney (or now see him as the "moderate" that needs to be stopped). Romney handily won Colorado and Minnesota (and narrowly lost Missouri) four years ago.
It's kinda ironic that a "moderate" has become an insult these days among the crowd which follows a religion that considers "Moderation" to be one of its Cardinal Virtues. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2012, 12:05:23 AM
Looks like Santorum might win Colorado too
32% in and it's 42.2-28.4%
Santorum surges from behind? :hmm: :x
Ron Paul reiterates his desired alliance with Romney.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/paul-romney-is-someone-i-could-talk-to-113820.html
Any chances of someone else dropping their hat in to save the day? Rubio?
Quote from: Faeelin on February 08, 2012, 09:15:50 AM
Any chances of someone else dropping their hat in to save the day? Rubio?
Sarah Palin tried to, but was confused by that phrase and showed up with a hat with a ring in it. Katmai got it on tape.
Saw Santorum give his speech last night where he blamed Obama for the Wall Street bailouts to help his Wall Street friends.
Is his target audience really so ignorant there are incapable of recalling what happened less than 4 years ago? Hank Paulson and the 3 page memo. John McCain "suspending" his campaign. Chris Cox. Bear, Lehman, the Freddie/Fannie takover, the AIG loan, the Stabilization Fund, TARP, TALF, CPP, the asset purchase program, the MBS buys.
2008, people. 2008.
Call it naivite, but is kind of astonishing that a serious candidate for President can start a speech with such an obvious lie and get away with it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
Saw Santorum give his speech last night where he blamed Obama for the Wall Street bailouts to help his Wall Street friends.
Is his target audience really so ignorant there are incapable of recalling what happened less than 4 years ago? Hank Paulson and the 3 page memo. John McCain "suspending" his campaign. Chris Cox. Bear, Lehman, the Freddie/Fannie takover, the AIG loan, the Stabilization Fund, TARP, TALF, CPP, the asset purchase program, the MBS buys.
2008, people. 2008.
Call it naivite, but is kind of astonishing that a serious candidate for President can start a speech with such an obvious lie and get away with it.
Yes, yes you are naive, yes they invariably get away with it.
Well, apparently the housing bubble was caused by people being unable to pay their mortgages due to higher airconditioning and heating bills:
"We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst," Santorum told the audience. "People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn't pay their mortgage."
http://coloradoindependent.com/111924/santorum-and-gingrich-dismiss-climate-change-vow-to-dismantle-the-epa
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:07:14 PM
Well, apparently the housing bubble was caused by people being unable to pay their mortgages due to higher airconditioning and heating bills:
"We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst," Santorum told the audience. "People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn't pay their mortgage."
http://coloradoindependent.com/111924/santorum-and-gingrich-dismiss-climate-change-vow-to-dismantle-the-epa
Oh dear... This in addition to what JR posted is kinda worrying.
With some apologies to Huntsman, this has been a one person race since the beginning. Aside from Romney, the rest aren't qualified or competent enough for a spot on Celebrity Apprentice, much less a major party nomination for President.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
Call it naivite, but is kind of astonishing that a serious candidate for President can start a speech with such an obvious lie and get away with it.
A political party gets the candidate it deserves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
Saw Santorum give his speech last night where he blamed Obama for the Wall Street bailouts to help his Wall Street friends.
Is his target audience really so ignorant there are incapable of recalling what happened less than 4 years ago? Hank Paulson and the 3 page memo. John McCain "suspending" his campaign. Chris Cox. Bear, Lehman, the Freddie/Fannie takover, the AIG loan, the Stabilization Fund, TARP, TALF, CPP, the asset purchase program, the MBS buys.
2008, people. 2008.
Call it naivite, but is kind of astonishing that a serious candidate for President can start a speech with such an obvious lie and get away with it.
I blame "opinions differ on shape of the Earth" journalism. Also, the ideological distortion the average ground-level Republican views the world with.
God, if only we could flip the Democrat switch in these people, we'd be unstoppable.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:07:14 PM
Well, apparently the housing bubble was caused by people being unable to pay their mortgages due to higher airconditioning and heating bills:
"We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst," Santorum told the audience. "People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn't pay their mortgage."
http://coloradoindependent.com/111924/santorum-and-gingrich-dismiss-climate-change-vow-to-dismantle-the-epa
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2012, 01:30:16 PM
God, if only we could flip the Democrat switch in these people, we'd be unstoppable.
Yes with all following Queen Pelosi would could run ourselves into the ground even faster!
Pretty fucking boneheaded.
Anyone know if Santorum's states have open primaries/caucuses? I'm wondering if he won because of a deluge of Idy Logs.
Good god, could you lot not hurry up and choose a/any candidate.
Alternatively, have you considered smoke-filled rooms ? :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on February 08, 2012, 01:57:58 PM
Alternatively, have you considered smoke-filled rooms ? :bowler:
The Ron Paul supporters have that covered.
I'm a bit surprised by Santorum's surge here.
And worried too.
Quote from: citizen k on February 08, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 08, 2012, 01:57:58 PM
Alternatively, have you considered smoke-filled rooms ? :bowler:
The Ron Paul supporters have that covered.
Yeah, but they forget to vote and instead get six monster burgers from Hardees.
Quote from: mongers on February 08, 2012, 01:57:58 PM
Good god, could you lot not hurry up and choose a/any candidate.
Nope. Just like our TV shows require 20+ episodes instead of 6 we like to drag the drama out.
President Santorum?
Well, at least he could be relied upon to put a smart-bomb through the window in Marti's flat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 01:48:27 PM
Pretty fucking boneheaded.
Anyone know if Santorum's states have open primaries/caucuses? I'm wondering if he won because of a deluge of Idy Logs.
I doubt it. My understanding is that strategic voting is actually very rare. Plus, you'd have to be a pretty committed strategic voter to go to a caucus, which I imagine is a much bigger pain in the ass than regular voting.
Quote from: Zanza on February 08, 2012, 01:39:06 PM
:lol:
It'd be funny except for the fact that there are people of legal voting age who actually will believe that pile of horseshit.
If we elect Jughead as President, then does that mean Archie will become Secretary of State? :hmm:
Are there any prominent ginger males in Congress? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 03:02:50 PM
Are there any prominent ginger males in Congress? :hmm:
A congressman is the last person you would want representing our nation abroad.
Quote from: mongers on February 08, 2012, 01:57:58 PM
Alternatively, have you considered smoke-filled rooms ?
I know they're bad, but do we really need to gas them?
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2012, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 08, 2012, 01:57:58 PM
Alternatively, have you considered smoke-filled rooms ?
I know they're bad, but do we really need to gas them?
There is no evidence that my camps do anything but provide badly needed essential services.
I got some resistance earlier about my theory that organization is less important than being the most hardcore in these caucus states--it seems I was right on this one (you are unlikely to see me posting many follow ups for all the times I am wrong).
Also, Romney sucks as a candidate.
Also, I got a chuckle out of headlines like "surging Santorum" and "show me Santorum" this morning.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/trump-i-dont-get-rick-santorum-talks-romney-cabinet-position/
Trump for Secretary of State?
:lol:
Trump is a joke that has been run into the ground for some time.
Really? Isn't that what you were banking on for years?
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354408-taking-fight-to-santorum-romney-predicts-extended-primary-battle
QuoteTaking fight to Santorum, Romney predicts extended primary battle
By NBC's Garrett Haake
ATLANTA —Predicting an extended nominating fight, Mitt Romney said Wednesday he didn't expect the GOP primary season to result in a "coronation," all while downplaying a sweep of three nominating contests last night by Rick Santorum.
Romney said he still expected to become the Republican Party's nominee against President Obama this fall, but seemed to brace for a longer-than-expected path to the nomination.
"We think we can beat Sen. Santorum where we compete head-to-head in an aggressive way, and we obviously didn't do that in Colorado or Minnesota to the extent that the other campaign did," Romney said on an airport Tarmac here in Georgia. "There will certainly be places where he wins, and there will be places where I win. There's no such thing as coronations in presidential politics. It's meant to be a long process. It's not easy to get the nomination, it's not easy to be elected president and this is a testing ... a testing approach. And so far we're doing pretty well."
Last night's contests — in which no delegates were awarded, Romney's campaign was quick to point out — did not, however, go so well for Romney. He suffered double digit defeats in Minnesota, where he won four years ago, and in Missouri, where Newt Gingrich did not appear on the ballot. In Colorado, a state where Romney competed actively and where the campaign seemed confident of a win, he lost by five points to Santorum.
Asked today about lessons learned in the defeat, Romney came out swinging, lumping Santorum together with Gingrich as a creature of Washington, and blaming both men for fostering a spending and earmark culture that ultimately hurt the Republican party, and spawned the Tea Party movement. The former Massachusetts governor said he did not respond to attacks while campaigning in Nevada, but that going forward he would make differences between himself and his opponents "very clear."
"Under Newt Gingrich earmarks doubled. Rick Santorum was a major earmarker and continues to defend earmarks. Under Rick Santorum he voted to raise the debt ceiling I believe five different times to a tune of about an addition $3.5 trillion," Romney said. "I believe that while Sen. Santorum was serving in congress and the Senate, government spending increased by some 80%. Republicans spent too much money, borrowed too much money, earmarked too much, and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have to be held accountable."
Romney followed up with a spending-based attack on Santorum at a rally later on: "During Sen. Santorum's time in Washington, government grew 80 percent. And he voted to raise the debt ceiling five times."
Perhaps looking to reclaim his economy-oriented message, Romney turned his attack on Santorum and Gingrich into an attack on borrowing and spending more broadly, and hammered his point home.
"When Republicans act like Democrats, they lose. And in Newt Gingrich's case he had to resign. In Rick Santorum's case, he lost by the biggest margin of any Senate incumbent since 1980. Again, borrowing, spending, and earmarking is not a good combination if you're a Republican and not a good combination, in my view, for America," Romney said.
A pretty awesome quote I found.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/santorum_s_big_victories_what_will_front_runner_mitt_romney_do_now_.html
QuoteThe GOP nominating race has become a clash of vampires and zombies. Candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich appear to die only to rise again, while Mitt Romney walks around not quite alive.
Mitt, please stop calling that nitwit "Senator"
The guy has been out of work for 5 years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 07:35:46 PM
Mitt, please stop calling that nitwit "Senator"
The guy has been out of work for 5 years.
Don't you get to be called that for the rest of your life?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 07:35:46 PM
Mitt, please stop calling that nitwit "Senator"
The guy has been out of work for 5 years.
Well Romney has, in his phrase, been unemployed for as long.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2012, 07:36:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 07:35:46 PM
Mitt, please stop calling that nitwit "Senator"
The guy has been out of work for 5 years.
Don't you get to be called that for the rest of your life?
It's always jarring when you hear American politicians talking about British politicians because it's not like that over here. So Bill Clinton calling Gordon Brown 'Chancellor Brown' or people referring to 'Prime Minister Blair' always sounds very odd to us.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2012, 07:36:53 PM
Don't you get to be called that for the rest of your life?
he didn't call newt "Speaker"
Besides the right wing kooks are always yammering on about no titles of nobility.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
Well Romney has, in his phrase, been unemployed for as long.
That's different. He's retired. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2012, 07:31:54 PM
Really? Isn't that what you were backing on for years?
Generally not a good idea to admit that it is rightfully yours. See Hillary. :(
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 05:09:33 AM
It's kinda ironic that a "moderate" has become an insult these days among the crowd which follows a religion that considers "Moderation" to be one of its Cardinal Virtues. ;)
I don't actually think the issue with Romney is that he's a 'moderate'. He's not saying anything strikingly moderate. I can't think of a single McCain style 'straight talk, my friends' moment from Romney. Romney was a moderate Governor of a blue state who, on leaving office, decided to run as a rock-ribbed social conservative in 2008. That's why I think conservatives don't like Romney. They just don't trust anything he says, I think reasonably enough. I think if Romney had run as a businessman, moderate Massachussetts Governor in 2008 he'd have lost, but I think he'd have already won this primary.
Far more important, in my view, is that the base think, rightly, that Romney's a weak candidate. They don't know what he'd actually do in office, but then who does? And they don't like having this foist on them by an out-of-touch failed party elite and told it's good for them. Again who can blame them for that?
Romney's real problem isn't that conservatives don't like him. It's that moderates don't. Independents don't. He is at best the candidate that everyone can kind of accept. There's no base of really enthusiastic Romney supporters and I think all campaigns need people who are for your campaign and want you in office. At best Romney's support is indifferent. Phil's the only Romney-backer (as opposed to 'well, he'll do') I've actually seen.
QuoteSaw Santorum give his speech last night where he blamed Obama for the Wall Street bailouts to help his Wall Street friends.
This is standard. Romney blames Obama for the 'Obama recession'. Newt thinks Obama wants the poor to be dependant because of something something Kenyan something Allinsky socialist anti-colonial mindset. I don't quite understand it myself.
QuoteAny chances of someone else dropping their hat in to save the day? Rubio?
I think it's too late. A candidate couldn't file in enough states to win the delegates. The only hope is a brokered convention.
QuoteI'm a bit surprised by Santorum's surge here.
And worried too.
If I were Romney I'd worry more about Santorum than Newt. Santorum can appeal to evangelicals, working class voters and Catholics who've all been weak for Romney this time round. He's also a strong retail campaigner and he's disciplined. None of that really goes for Newt so much.
What should really scare Romney is if Newt drops out. As Ian Leslie said Newt probably knows that's the best way to achieve his goal and destroy Romney. Luckily for Romney this requires Newt's head to beat Newt's galactic ego. So he should be safe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2012, 10:59:51 PMWhat should really scare Romney is if Newt drops out. As Ian Leslie said Newt probably knows that's the best way to achieve his goal and destroy Romney. Luckily for Romney this requires Newt's head to beat Newt's galactic ego. So he should be safe.
It also requires that destroying Romney is a something Newt values over the spotlight.
Any chance that Ron Paul will pull an upset in Maine?
If he didn't win New Hampshire, he won't win anywhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2012, 07:36:53 PM
Don't you get to be called that for the rest of your life?
he didn't call newt "Speaker"
Besides the right wing kooks are always yammering on about no titles of nobility.
Technically, you don't address someone by their former title if only one person can occupy that title at time. Since there's only one Speaker, it's appropriate to not address Gingrich by that title, but since there are multiple senators at a time, it is okay to call address Santorum as senator.
Isn't it common to address a former president as 'Mr. President'?
Quote from: Phillip V on February 11, 2012, 07:24:27 AM
Any chance that Ron Paul will pull an upset in Maine?
It seems like his sort of state. But I read a post on PPP recently. They said that though very little polling's done on Maine and it's very difficult to poll for (7 day caucus and all) that Republicans in Maine don't really like Paul, but his approval ratings are such that he could do very well if his supporters turn out and others don't.
But it's odd. I'd have expected Paul to be far more popular there:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/thoughts-on-maine.html
So according to realclearpolitics, only one national poll of republicans has been conducted entirely after the Tuesday night results, which was by PPP and looks like this:
Santorum: 38%
Romney: 23%
Gingrich: 17%
Paul: 13%
At least nominating Santorum - and thus guaranteeing an Obama landslide - should break the power of the fundies within the Republican party for awhile.
Quote from: Kleves on February 11, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
At least nominating Santorum - and thus guaranteeing an Obama landslide - should break the power of the fundies within the Republican party for awhile.
No, they'll be convinced he lost because he was too moderate and try harder next time.
Quote from: Kleves on February 11, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
At least nominating Santorum - and thus guaranteeing an Obama landslide - should break the power of the fundies within the Republican party for awhile.
Which candidate won't guarantee an Obama landslide?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2012, 12:43:44 PM
Quote from: Kleves on February 11, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
At least nominating Santorum - and thus guaranteeing an Obama landslide - should break the power of the fundies within the Republican party for awhile.
Which candidate won't guarantee an Obama landslide?
Obama ?
Quote from: mongers on February 11, 2012, 12:51:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2012, 12:43:44 PM
Quote from: Kleves on February 11, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
At least nominating Santorum - and thus guaranteeing an Obama landslide - should break the power of the fundies within the Republican party for awhile.
Which candidate won't guarantee an Obama landslide?
Obama ?
:lol:
Just as Newt quickly faded before Iowa and after South Carolina, Santorum quickly faded after Iowa and will fade before Arizona/Michigan. Romney will spend boatloads of money on driving up Santorum's negatives. But then he will get complacent, and Newt will surge again. :D
Quote from: mongers on February 11, 2012, 12:51:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2012, 12:43:44 PM
Quote from: Kleves on February 11, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
At least nominating Santorum - and thus guaranteeing an Obama landslide - should break the power of the fundies within the Republican party for awhile.
Which candidate won't guarantee an Obama landslide?
Obama ?
Yes. He, like the Democrats before him will be his own undoing.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Yes. He, like the Democrats before him will be his own undoing.
It is always something isn't it?
Ted Kennedy undone by chappaquiddick, Gary Hart by "monkey business", Dukakis by the tank helmet, Gore by sighing during the debate, and Obama by not being a good president.
Kerry and his goose.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Yes. He, like the Democrats before him will be his own undoing.
It is always something isn't it?
Dukakis by the tank helmet, Gore by sighing during the debate,
Dukakis was undone more by the Willie Horton thing and Kitty Litter.
Gore did more damage than sighing when he dry humped his wife at the Convention.
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
Swift Boats...
Story of the Democrats; taking the High Road just means you've got farther to drop when the Republicans put you through the guard rail.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 01:48:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Yes. He, like the Democrats before him will be his own undoing.
It is always something isn't it?
Dukakis by the tank helmet, Gore by sighing during the debate,
Dukakis was undone more by the Willie Horton thing and Kitty Litter.
Gore did more damage than sighing when he dry humped his wife at the Convention.
The two worst moments at any convention: the Gore dry hump, and Kerry "reporting for duty".
I wasn't serious about Obama being a bad president, btw. Grading on the curve of 21st century presidents, he is an all star.
Obama has more sense than to overplay the "I'm not a weenie" angle. Those Democrats who tried it not only looked pathetic, but also validated the Republican chest puffing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
Swift Boats...
Story of the Democrats; taking the High Road just means you've got farther to drop when the Republicans put you through the guard rail.
It wasn't the Republicans who used electoral fraud and media stoogery to win the 1960 election.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
There's something about the Democrats and an unwillingness to be nasty. I've never understood it. What we need is a Democrat willing to be as mean, vicious, and dirty as a Republican. Like LBJ, or FDR.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Obama has more sense than to overplay the "I'm not a weenie" angle. Those Democrats who tried it not only looked pathetic, but also validated the Republican chest puffing.
You sound like a wuss.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 03:10:27 PM
There's something about the Democrats and an unwillingness to be nasty. I've never understood it. What we need is a Democrat willing to be as mean, vicious, and dirty as a Republican. Like LBJ, or FDR.
Part of the reason you think Democrats can't be nasty could be that you perceive Democratic nastiness as the simple truth.
I concede being biased, but by no means do I believe, nor do I think you believe, that Obama is as mean as the average Republican presidential candidate in 2012, nor most Democratic candidates in general as mean as Republican candidates.
When Dems get called "socialists" (or have their policies called such), I've never heard one fire back with "fascist," "theocrat" or "anarchist," as appropriate; when called "class warriors," I've never heard one respond by calling their opponents "job destroyers," "mercenaries" or "thieves," as appropriate.
They also seem to make a lot fewer statements that aren't true or are incredibly viciously spun, e.g. that the Obama stimulus did nothing, that Obamacare includes death panels, or that Obama isn't an American.
Maybe all the "no blood for oil" stuff counts, but I don't remember any actual candidates who said that...
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 03:10:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
There's something about the Democrats and an unwillingness to be nasty. I've never understood it. What we need is a Democrat willing to be as mean, vicious, and dirty as a Republican. Like LBJ, or FDR.
I think it's easy to understand, actually. When you have a strong goal, it becomes easier for the ends to justify the means. Republicans have it, they have a very coherent reactionary agenda. Liberals have no strong agenda. Another reason is that liberals by their very nature reject the concept that there is a simple truth out there, and that naturally makes you a less determined fighter.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
Swift Boats...
Story of the Democrats; taking the High Road just means you've got farther to drop when the Republicans put you through the guard rail.
It wasn't the Republicans who used electoral fraud and media stoogery to win the 1960 election.
LOL, and Nixon was the height of political honesty.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 03:31:03 PM
When Dems get called "socialists" (or have their policies called such), I've never heard one fire back with "fascist," "theocrat" or "anarchist," as appropriate;
The socialist label is more accurate, not that it's a bad thing.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2012, 03:34:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 03:10:27 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
There's something about the Democrats and an unwillingness to be nasty. I've never understood it. What we need is a Democrat willing to be as mean, vicious, and dirty as a Republican. Like LBJ, or FDR.
I think it's easy to understand, actually. When you have a strong goal, it becomes easier for the ends to justify the means. Republicans have it, they have a very coherent reactionary agenda. Liberals have no strong agenda. Another reason is that liberals by their very nature reject the concept that there is a simple truth out there, and that naturally makes you a less determined fighter.
Meh, the problem with Liberals is they actually believe that Nice Guys Finish First, and that politics is some sort of "higher calling" that doesn't need to be fought in the mud.
Suckers.
If only someone had settled that crap in writing already 500 years ago.
That too. The history of politics is full of guys who erroneously thought that playing nice would be appreciated by the voting public. It would've been way fuller if losers actually wrote history.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 03:31:03 PM
I concede being biased, but by no means do I believe, nor do I think you believe, that Obama is as mean as the average Republican presidential candidate in 2012, nor most Democratic candidates in general as mean as Republican candidates.
When Dems get called "socialists" (or have their policies called such), I've never heard one fire back with "fascist," "theocrat" or "anarchist," as appropriate; when called "class warriors," I've never heard one respond by calling their opponents "job destroyers," "mercenaries" or "thieves," as appropriate.
They also seem to make a lot fewer statements that aren't true or are incredibly viciously spun, e.g. that the Obama stimulus did nothing, that Obamacare includes death panels, or that Obama isn't an American.
Maybe all the "no blood for oil" stuff counts, but I don't remember any actual candidates who said that...
Oh come now Ide. Fascist is hardly the counterpart to socialist. Democrats have been engaged in a non-stop rhetorical war about fat cats and greedy millionaires and billionaires and out of touch Republicans who own thousands of vacation homes and special tax loopholes for the rich, etc., etc.
The proper counterpart to "socialist" is "like, those guys who own the factories are sending the jobs overseas but don't care about us at all. I know, my uncle was in a union and I worked at K-mart between semesters."
I loses a lot of oomph when used as a retort.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Obama has more sense than to overplay the "I'm not a weenie" angle. Those Democrats who tried it not only looked pathetic, but also validated the Republican chest puffing.
Obama has an ace up his sleeve in the form of a very tall, very dead, old Arab.
Actually, he said back in 2008 he would launch a strike against a high value target in Pakistan with out alerting the Pakistanis first. cause quite a minor row, we had a thread on it. Tim started it and called it irresponsible.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Actually, he said back in 2008 he would launch a strike against a high value target in Pakistan with out alerting the Pakistanis first. cause quite a minor row, we had a thread on it. Tim started it and called it irresponsible.
Would be even better if he launched the strike without warning them that he would launch it without warning them.
I'm not sure I buy the equivalence with what you've listed and the Democrats as appeasing socialists who want the poor to be dependant and didn't really want bin Laden dead.
On the other hand I don't think Democrats are weak or don't do attacks (I think Horton was first raised in the primary). I just think they're often really shit at politics. Many of them come across to me as pretty arrogant technocrats who just wish they could get on with running the country as they so clearly deserve. They're like less charming ENArques <_<
Who are you talking to Shelf?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
Who are you talking to Shelf?
Yi. I thought I'd quoted him :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2012, 04:54:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
Who are you talking to Shelf?
Yi. I thought I'd quoted him :blush:
Oh, he's just repeating Conservative talking points. He's starting to shift into Hans territory lately.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2012, 03:54:55 PM
Democrats have been engaged in a non-stop rhetorical war about fat cats and greedy millionaires and billionaires and out of touch Republicans who own thousands of vacation homes and special tax loopholes for the rich, etc., etc.
Stating the truth is hardly a rhetorical war. :mellow:
Quote from: Zoupa on February 12, 2012, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2012, 03:54:55 PM
Democrats have been engaged in a non-stop rhetorical war about fat cats and greedy millionaires and billionaires and out of touch Republicans who own thousands of vacation homes and special tax loopholes for the rich, etc., etc.
Stating the truth is hardly a rhetorical war. :mellow:
:lol: Welcome to America!
Quote from: Zoupa on February 12, 2012, 06:10:34 PM
Stating the truth is hardly a rhetorical war. :mellow:
Already covered that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 03:37:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
Swift Boats...
Story of the Democrats; taking the High Road just means you've got farther to drop when the Republicans put you through the guard rail.
It wasn't the Republicans who used electoral fraud and media stoogery to win the 1960 election.
LOL, and Nixon was the height of political honesty.
It's hard to blame a guy whose enemies will stop at nothing to destroy him.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 12, 2012, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2012, 03:54:55 PM
Democrats have been engaged in a non-stop rhetorical war about fat cats and greedy millionaires and billionaires and out of touch Republicans who own thousands of vacation homes and special tax loopholes for the rich, etc., etc.
Stating the truth is hardly a rhetorical war. :mellow:
GOPtard suckers are sorta funny like that.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
It's hard to blame a guy whose enemies will stop at nothing to destroy him.
That's why it's difficult to blame Nixon's enemies. The man would stop at nothing to destroy them.
I dunno. Both parties are in need of some moderation. The Republicans seem to be determined to bring back serfdom and to ensure that that all money and power is concentrated in the hands of a new aristocracy. The Democrats are equally determined to ensure that nobody rises too high so, and that all the power is concentrated in the hands of a new aristocracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
It's hard to blame a guy whose enemies will stop at nothing to destroy him.
That's why it's difficult to blame Nixon's enemies. The man would stop at nothing to destroy them.
They went after him first.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 08:20:17 PM
The Democrats are equally determined to ensure that nobody rises too high so, and that all the power is concentrated in the hands of a new aristocracy.
Link plz, foreigner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 08:20:17 PM
The Democrats are equally determined to ensure that nobody rises too high, and that all the power is concentrated in the hands of a new aristocracy.
Link plz, foreigner.
Link? What sort of nonsense is that?
If only you were a Canadian. Then you would already have won the culture war.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 08:20:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
It's hard to blame a guy whose enemies will stop at nothing to destroy him.
That's why it's difficult to blame Nixon's enemies. The man would stop at nothing to destroy them.
They went after him first.
Somehow I doubt Alger Hiss knew much about Nixon in the early 1940's.
The rhetoric being thrown around is scary. Both parties are dominated by True Believers.
But they are irrelevant. The parties themselves are machines that exist only to win elections. The success or failure of any initiative is irrelevant so long as their marketing specialists are able to convince enough of the electorate that it's all someone else' fault.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 09:21:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 08:20:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
It's hard to blame a guy whose enemies will stop at nothing to destroy him.
That's why it's difficult to blame Nixon's enemies. The man would stop at nothing to destroy them.
They went after him first.
Somehow I doubt Alger Hiss knew much about Nixon in the early 1940's.
Nixon was an American, and thus Alger Hiss had it in for him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2012, 03:54:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 03:31:03 PM
I concede being biased, but by no means do I believe, nor do I think you believe, that Obama is as mean as the average Republican presidential candidate in 2012, nor most Democratic candidates in general as mean as Republican candidates.
When Dems get called "socialists" (or have their policies called such), I've never heard one fire back with "fascist," "theocrat" or "anarchist," as appropriate; when called "class warriors," I've never heard one respond by calling their opponents "job destroyers," "mercenaries" or "thieves," as appropriate.
They also seem to make a lot fewer statements that aren't true or are incredibly viciously spun, e.g. that the Obama stimulus did nothing, that Obamacare includes death panels, or that Obama isn't an American.
Maybe all the "no blood for oil" stuff counts, but I don't remember any actual candidates who said that...
Oh come now Ide. Fascist is hardly the counterpart to socialist. Democrats have been engaged in a non-stop rhetorical war about fat cats and greedy millionaires and billionaires and out of touch Republicans who own thousands of vacation homes and special tax loopholes for the rich, etc., etc.
It's not that fascist is the counterpart to socialist, it's that it's a dirty word. And of course not all of them are fascists. Some are dominionists, and a lot are "libertarians," whose defunding policies would have anarchic effects. And some
are just selfish rich people, but they also tend to be crypto-anarchists.
And some precious few are just decent guys who distrust statism and misunderstand the necessity of a strong welfare state. :hug:
But seriously, maybe I don't watch the news enough, but has any Democrat (of high rank, I don't mean
me) called Mitt Romney a greedy millionaire who is not only not human, but barely has anything in common with humans? Or Newt Gingrich a filthy racist? Or Ron Paul an insane person? Or Rick Santorum a misogynist fruitcake? Because Obama, or Pelosi, or somebody, should do that.
But, on reflection and going into the Bush years, you might be right. I think maybe Howard Dean made comments to that effect (although even then I doubt as harsh) about the then-current administration. I miss Dean. He was my second favorite. :(
Santorum is apparently of ITALIAN descent. :yuk:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 03:37:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 03:09:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 12, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Dukakis was a pansy for that stuff. The ACLU thing, Willie Horton... he could have and should have fought back instead of taking it like a little bitch.
Swift Boats...
Story of the Democrats; taking the High Road just means you've got farther to drop when the Republicans put you through the guard rail.
It wasn't the Republicans who used electoral fraud and media stoogery to win the 1960 election.
LOL, and Nixon was the height of political honesty.
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not
his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
But seriously, maybe I don't watch the news enough, but has any Democrat (of high rank, I don't mean me) called Mitt Romney a greedy millionaire who is not only not human, but barely has anything in common with humans?
So unless the Dems call Mitt Romeny non-human, they aren't mean enough for you?
Or something similar. "Sociopath," "devoid of human feelings," "amoral," "bad," "robotic."
"I-BELIEVE-IN-AN-AMERICA-WHERE-MILLIONS-OF-AMERICANS-BELIEVE-IN-AN-AMERICA-THAT'S-THE-AMERI-SQUEEEEEEEE"
Some of the stuff ya hear these days would make calling him non-human tame.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
But seriously, maybe I don't watch the news enough, but has any Democrat (of high rank, I don't mean me) called Mitt Romney a greedy millionaire who is not only not human, but barely has anything in common with humans? Or Newt Gingrich a filthy racist? Or Ron Paul an insane person? Or Rick Santorum a misogynist fruitcake? Because Obama, or Pelosi, or somebody, should do that.
But, on reflection and going into the Bush years, you might be right. I think maybe Howard Dean made comments to that effect (although even then I doubt as harsh) about the then-current administration. I miss Dean. He was my second favorite. :(
Ide, if Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum gets the nomination, plenty of shit will get thrown their way. Everyone needs to keep their mouth shut right now because they don't want to screw up whatever remote chance there might be of them getting the nomination.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
wtf :mad:
Oh yeah, I forgot about FDR's relative. He was better, I suppose.
Dear god, was this stuff used to break the will of prisoners in Guantanamo ? :bleeding:
Our elections are 4 weeks long and even the historically almost unprecedented interregnum* in May 2010 only lasted like 3 days.
* No doubt there is a word to described the period between the formations of governments, but I can't be arsed to find it, besides the sovereign isn't really sovereign here, so sod it I'll use that word if I please. :bowler:
Anyway, Yi, Berkie, I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing. Maybe it is just my bias.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
On the other hand, he was also better president than any Democrat except for
maybe Truman.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
On the other hand, he was also better president than any Democrat except for maybe Truman.
Let me guess, your sole criteria is dropping A-bombs on Asians ? :hmm:
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:22:39 PM
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
Obama got through ObamaCare, plus a major stimulus bill. History will judge how effective those were, but barring the courts throwing out obamacare, he has gotten things done.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 10:31:19 PM
Obama got through ObamaCare, plus a major stimulus bill. History will judge how effective those were, but barring the courts throwing out obamacare, he has gotten things done.
I'm not sure history will discriminate much between Bush's TARP and Obama's ARRA. Didn't congress (especially the Reid-Pelosi Connection) play bigger roles in those than the lame duck president and junior senator one month in?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:22:39 PM
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
It's funny, because the Great Society was the beginning of the Republican economic policy of tax cuts to boost demand.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 10:31:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:22:39 PM
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
Obama got through ObamaCare, plus a major stimulus bill. History will judge how effective those were, but barring the courts throwing out obamacare, he has gotten things done.
I'd have preferred single-payer and a stimulus about three times bigger, that also involved a lot of direct hiring by the government for infrastructure repair and such. But I guess he did okay.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 10:45:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:22:39 PM
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
It's funny, because the Great Society was the beginning of the Republican economic policy of tax cuts to boost demand.
How so?
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2012, 10:41:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 10:31:19 PM
Obama got through ObamaCare, plus a major stimulus bill. History will judge how effective those were, but barring the courts throwing out obamacare, he has gotten things done.
I'm not sure history will discriminate much between Bush's TARP and Obama's ARRA. Didn't congress (especially the Reid-Pelosi Connection) play bigger roles in those than the lame duck president and junior senator one month in?
ARRA and TARP will be a significant part of the economic history of the country. Neither TARP nor ARRA goes through without Obama. Obviously others played a role in those (especially Bush/Paulson for TARP), but I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 10:51:03 PM
ARRA and TARP will be a significant part of the economic history of the country. Neither TARP nor ARRA goes through without Obama. Obviously others played a role in those (especially Bush/Paulson for TARP), but I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Where am I coming from? Obama had just barely come onto the scene when both started up. Not sure why they couldn't have happened without Obama - unless that's one of he allowed them to continue.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2012, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 10:51:03 PM
ARRA and TARP will be a significant part of the economic history of the country. Neither TARP nor ARRA goes through without Obama. Obviously others played a role in those (especially Bush/Paulson for TARP), but I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Where am I coming from? Obama had just barely come onto the scene when both started up. Not sure why they couldn't have happened without Obama - unless that's one of he allowed them to continue.
They wouldn't have happened because TARP was a struggle to get passed to begin with, and passed on the basis of democratic support. I find it hard to believe that had Obama fought TARP one month before a presidential election that enough democrats wouldn't have stood with him to keep it from happening. Ie, a substantial majority of congressional democrats were not going to stand with Bush and against Obama to send money to banks.
ARRA simply wasn't going to happen without presidential support, and his administration pushed hard for it.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:48:38 PM
I'd have preferred single-payer and a stimulus about three times bigger, that also involved a lot of direct hiring by the government for infrastructure repair and such. But I guess he did okay.
I get the socialized medicine, but the Japanese model of stimulus seems to have been an abject failure.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:50:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 10:45:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:22:39 PM
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
It's funny, because the Great Society was the beginning of the Republican economic policy of tax cuts to boost demand.
How so?
Kennedy's tax cuts, which spun the country's economy back up again. They were part of the program and the good times were important in creating a fruitful environment for civil rights.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 10:45:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 10:22:39 PM
FDR, Truman, and LBJ (Vietnam minus ten, Great Society plus ten billion) were better, he's about equal with Clinton, better than Carter (see below), and significantly better than Wilson, who iirc was obscenely bad. I don't know about Obama yet--his first term's not quite through, and he's had some brutal enemies. Even so--granted I had no experience of Carter--but Obama strikes me as kind of like a new Carter, that is, weak in spirit. On the other hand, at least Obama's helicopters work.
It's funny, because the Great Society was the beginning of the Republican economic policy of tax cuts to boost demand.
I disagree. Lowering the tax rates from 90%+ was just a common sense thing to do, even lowering them from 70% like Reagan has done. Lowering them to 28% top rate was moving into the idiotic category, though, and carried interest nonsense continued the idiocy.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2012, 02:19:05 AM
I disagree. Lowering the tax rates from 90%+ was just a common sense thing to do, even lowering them from 70% like Reagan has done. Lowering them to 28% top rate was moving into the idiotic category, though, and carried interest nonsense continued the idiocy.
I'm curious where you think the range of reasonable is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2012, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2012, 02:19:05 AM
I disagree. Lowering the tax rates from 90%+ was just a common sense thing to do, even lowering them from 70% like Reagan has done. Lowering them to 28% top rate was moving into the idiotic category, though, and carried interest nonsense continued the idiocy.
I'm curious where you think the range of reasonable is.
From that post somewhere above 28 and lower than 70. :P
Santorum beats Romney by 15 points in the latest Michigan poll. Romney needs to go on the attack now if he wants to fend off a devastating upset in his state of birth.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/ppp-santorum-takes-the-lead-in-michigan-114309.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/ppp-santorum-takes-the-lead-in-michigan-114309.html)
Who could have forseen that when he ceased to be the right wing candidate that Romney would struggle in the caucuses, and that the 25%-30% he struggled to break in early polling was indicative of a major ceiling of resistance that would be a major problem in as things moved to a person race? :whistle:
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2012, 10:06:13 PM
Dear god, was this stuff used to break the will of prisoners in Guantanamo ? :bleeding:
Our elections are 4 weeks long and even the historically almost unprecedented interregnum* in May 2010 only lasted like 3 days.
:bleeding: Dear God, is it possible you to ever stop whining about the length of a process you can completely ignore except if you want to whinge about it on and on?
No one gives a shit how long your elections are. No one but you is convinced that any system other than yours is legitimate.
Just. Stop. Reading. That will end your agony. As a side effect, it will stop you posting, and so end my agony; win-win.
Why not stop reading monger's posts?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2012, 12:40:49 PM
Why not stop reading monger's posts?
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2012, 10:51:03 PM
ARRA and TARP will be a significant part of the economic history of the country. Neither TARP nor ARRA goes through without Obama. Obviously others played a role in those (especially Bush/Paulson for TARP), but I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Paulson and Bush played more than a "role" in TARP - they came up with the idea, pushed it through Congress, and implemented it, Santorum's recent amensia on the subject nothwithstanding. (though to be fair to Rick, at the time this happened he was out of office and his snout was stuck so deep in the lobbyist trough he might not have noticed anything else going on).
Both TARP and ARRA go through not matter who the Democratic nominee was and whether or not Obama was a candidate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2012, 12:57:32 PM
Both TARP and ARRA go through not matter who the Democratic nominee was and whether or not Obama was a candidate.
If Obama was opposed, neither would have gone through. TARP was very controversial and failed on the first vote. It was primarily passed by House democrats while republicans opposed it. Had Obama hit the campaign trail with the message to block TARP as a Bush giveaway to the financial sector while the middle class got nothing, do you think it would have passed?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 01:05:58 PM
If Obama was opposed, neither would have gone through.
That's a different claim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2012, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2012, 02:19:05 AM
I disagree. Lowering the tax rates from 90%+ was just a common sense thing to do, even lowering them from 70% like Reagan has done. Lowering them to 28% top rate was moving into the idiotic category, though, and carried interest nonsense continued the idiocy.
I'm curious where you think the range of reasonable is.
Depends on the budget needs. Figure out how much you need to collect in taxes, and then spread the tax burden progressively. And I mean really progressively, not this bullshit where actual tax rates spike in the middle, and then go down to near 15% at the very top. The one problem with the top rate of 28% was that it turned out to be substantially inadequate to collect enough revenues.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 01:05:58 PM
If Obama was opposed, neither would have gone through.
That's a different claim.
I've read back through what I've posted, and I don't think it is--certainly in October 2008 there was going to be a democratic presidential candidate, and that candidate may or may not have used his or her influence in the same way as Obama did. We will never know. What we do know is what Obama did.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2012, 01:25:39 PM
Depends on the budget needs. Figure out how much you need to collect in taxes, and then spread the tax burden progressively. And I mean really progressively, not this bullshit where actual tax rates spike in the middle, and then go down to near 15% at the very top. The one problem with the top rate of 28% was that it turned out to be substantially inadequate to collect enough revenues.
The US has one of the most wildly progressive tax systems in the developed world. The problem isn't that the very small number of people who are very rich aren't paying enough, it's that the middle class aren't. That's further exacerbated by the lack of a VAT in the US.
There's also almost no evidence that progressive taxation is a major part in increasing social mobility or reducing income inequality. Income transfers in various forms of state spending are far more efficient ways of doing both and in that the US is near the bottom of the table.
I find the focus on taxing the rich more, just because, sort of ridiculous.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2012, 01:25:39 PM
Depends on the budget needs. Figure out how much you need to collect in taxes, and then spread the tax burden progressively. And I mean really progressively, not this bullshit where actual tax rates spike in the middle, and then go down to near 15% at the very top. The one problem with the top rate of 28% was that it turned out to be substantially inadequate to collect enough revenues.
The US has one of the most wildly progressive tax systems in the developed world. The problem isn't that the very small number of people who are very rich aren't paying enough, it's that the middle class aren't. That's further exacerbated by the lack of a VAT in the US.
There's also almost no evidence that progressive taxation is a major part in increasing social mobility or reducing income inequality. Income transfers in various forms of state spending are far more efficient ways of doing both and in that the US is near the bottom of the table.
I find the focus on taxing the rich more, just because, sort of ridiculous.
Our federal income tax is wildly progressive. But, a lot of our taxes are also state and local, which tend to be a combination of property taxes, sales taxes, and generally flat income taxes. Ie, not progressive.
Also, a lot of our federal government has been run off of payroll taxes for the past few decades. These only fall on earned income (not investment income) and mostly phase out after a bit over $100k in income. So those are regressive.
Put it all together and our system isn't as progressive as our most prominent tax (the federal income tax) would indicate.
Most countries payroll taxes have an upper limit and even including payroll taxes the US has one of the most progressive systems in the OECD.
You're right on state taxes though, again, in my experience there was generally still a lot of deductions and credits available and they were, practically speaking, very low in most cases. You're definitely right on the impact of state sales and property taxes.
Having said all that my understanding is that in terms of who's paying what amount of tax the US is very much an outlier. The only country that comes close was Ireland a few years ago which had a similarly very progressive system - again based more on people in the bottom half paying very little, rather than people at the top paying a lot.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 01:31:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 01:05:58 PM
If Obama was opposed, neither would have gone through.
That's a different claim.
I've read back through what I've posted, and I don't think it is--certainly in October 2008 there was going to be a democratic presidential candidate, and that candidate may or may not have used his or her influence in the same way as Obama did. We will never know. What we do know is what Obama did.
Maybe - however stood back and let it happen doesn't sound like a great accomplishment.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2012, 10:42:05 PMMaybe - however stood back and let it happen doesn't sound like a great accomplishment.
I think it deserves some credit. It would have been very easy for him - or McCain, for that matter - to campaign against bailouts. In the same way as I think Bush and Paulson deserve respect for their response I think that the candidates should get some for not letting it become a campaign issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2012, 10:42:05 PMMaybe - however stood back and let it happen doesn't sound like a great accomplishment.
I think it deserves some credit. It would have been very easy for him - or McCain, for that matter - to campaign against bailouts. In the same way as I think Bush and Paulson deserve respect for their response I think that the candidates should get some for not letting it become a campaign issue.
That's fine - but the original bit on this discussion was Obama's accomplishments.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2012, 10:30:07 PM
Most countries payroll taxes have an upper limit and even including payroll taxes the US has one of the most progressive systems in the OECD.
You're right on state taxes though, again, in my experience there was generally still a lot of deductions and credits available and they were, practically speaking, very low in most cases. You're definitely right on the impact of state sales and property taxes.
Having said all that my understanding is that in terms of who's paying what amount of tax the US is very much an outlier. The only country that comes close was Ireland a few years ago which had a similarly very progressive system - again based more on people in the bottom half paying very little, rather than people at the top paying a lot.
It is hard to generalize on state income taxes--some states don't even have them. But I think a rough average would be a 7% rate that kicks in around $10-$15k of income (below that with some progressivity), with income defined in a similar way to federal income.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 11:13:59 PM
It is hard to generalize on state income taxes--some states don't even have them. But I think a rough average would be a 7% rate that kicks in around $10-$15k of income (below that with some progressivity), with income defined in a similar way to federal income.
I had to research states' income taxes for 2010 in my last job. So they are difficult to generalise about, but I think a rough average of 7% is still low and the fact that many states don't have them at all doesn't seem to add to them being a significant regressive element. Though it is a bit of a balance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2012, 01:25:39 PM
Depends on the budget needs. Figure out how much you need to collect in taxes, and then spread the tax burden progressively. And I mean really progressively, not this bullshit where actual tax rates spike in the middle, and then go down to near 15% at the very top. The one problem with the top rate of 28% was that it turned out to be substantially inadequate to collect enough revenues.
The US has one of the most wildly progressive tax systems in the developed world. The problem isn't that the very small number of people who are very rich aren't paying enough, it's that the middle class aren't. That's further exacerbated by the lack of a VAT in the US.
There's also almost no evidence that progressive taxation is a major part in increasing social mobility or reducing income inequality. Income transfers in various forms of state spending are far more efficient ways of doing both and in that the US is near the bottom of the table.
I find the focus on taxing the rich more, just because, sort of ridiculous.
Oh my God, it's like I don't even know you.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2012, 11:40:29 PM
Oh my God, it's like I don't even know you.
:lol: What can I say, I'm intensely relaxed about the filthy rich. As Mandy put it, won't someone worry about the rich?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F8%2F7%2F1249663582463%2FPeter-Mandelson-in-Leeds-001.jpg&hash=5a004f01af6ad198b65abe9dc9a61d1b3f7d46e7)
Seriously I think everyone paying a reasonable amount of tax rather than a skewed system is actually essential for social solidarity and a credible welfare state. It's sort of like the reverse point as if the welfare state that is just for the poor then it will be a poor welfare state.
Well, as Al pointed out, there's a lot in that post that's just straight-up incorrect, too. :P
Anyway, the top rate should be around 50%, I'd say. But the bigger issue is taxing capital gains fairly. I'd be willing to believe that "fairly" would be at more than the income tax top rate, but it should at least be equal.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 04:24:16 AM
Well, as Al pointed out, there's a lot in that post that's just straight-up incorrect, too. :P
Anyway, the top rate should be around 50%, I'd say. But the bigger issue is taxing capital gains fairly. I'd be willing to believe that "fairly" would be at more than the income tax top rate, but it should at least be equal.
Go fuck yourself. I'm paying a 19% flat tax rate and you can only take it away from me if you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how that would go down. Next time Poland raises taxes I'll check CNN to see if the SPAP had to blow some lawyer's head off.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2012, 11:32:49 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 11:13:59 PM
It is hard to generalize on state income taxes--some states don't even have them. But I think a rough average would be a 7% rate that kicks in around $10-$15k of income (below that with some progressivity), with income defined in a similar way to federal income.
I had to research states' income taxes for 2010 in my last job. So they are difficult to generalise about, but I think a rough average of 7% is still low and the fact that many states don't have them at all doesn't seem to add to them being a significant regressive element. Though it is a bit of a balance.
I doubt any state has a truly regressive income tax--they just tend to be rather flat. But the states without them are probably the most regressive of all: they are getting all their revenue from sales and property taxes with other fees.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 04:24:16 AM
Well, as Al pointed out, there's a lot in that post that's just straight-up incorrect, too. :P
Anyway, the top rate should be around 50%, I'd say. But the bigger issue is taxing capital gains fairly. I'd be willing to believe that "fairly" would be at more than the income tax top rate, but it should at least be equal.
An issue here is that many capital gains (including dividends that are taxed at the capital gains rate) are a form of corporate earnings. Corporate earnings are taxed at 35% (with additional state taxes), which is behind only Japan in the developed world. So if I get a dividend from Microsoft, while I only pay 15% on that, it has already been taxed at 35%.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2012, 01:31:43 PM
I've read back through what I've posted, and I don't think it is--certainly in October 2008 there was going to be a democratic presidential candidate, and that candidate may or may not have used his or her influence in the same way as Obama did. We will never know. What we do know is what Obama did.
Your insistence that Obama could have stopped all forms of TARP-like relief and ARRA-type relief is unsubstantiated by any evidence whatever. We will never know if this is true. All we know is what did happen. Speculation about what might have happenned is, by your doctrine of "we will never know," pointless.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2012, 07:50:45 AM
An issue here is that many capital gains (including dividends that are taxed at the capital gains rate) are a form of corporate earnings. Corporate earnings are taxed at 35% (with additional state taxes), which is behind only Japan in the developed world. So if I get a dividend from Microsoft, while I only pay 15% on that, it has already been taxed at 35%.
That's the great "secret" that the ones baying at the moon over the capital gains tax rate conveniently forget. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 02:15:13 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2012, 11:40:29 PM
Oh my God, it's like I don't even know you.
:lol: What can I say, I'm intensely relaxed about the filthy rich. As Mandy put it, won't someone worry about the rich?
We have plenty of people who worry about the rich. If Berkut and Yi aren't enough, they can pay some people to worry for them.
I think one thing that gets overlooked when talking about US tax progressivity/regressivity (at least I've not seen it mentioned) is tax credits. Yes, payroll taxes are regressive, but I imagine it's possible for some people (especially with larger families) to get a net inflow of income tax.
Rick Santorum now the GOP frontrunner nationally in several polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Ugh
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
Rick Santorum now the GOP frontrunner nationally in several polls.
Awesome. That's even better news for the President than if it had been Gingrich.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 09:48:47 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
Rick Santorum now the GOP frontrunner nationally in several polls.
Awesome. That's even better news for the President than if it had been Gingrich.
Indeed. It assures my voting for Obama. :D
I sure as hell won't vote for Santorum. Unless he runs on a platform of turning the country in the Handmaid's Tale. And I'm Robert Duvall.
So how many actually think Santorum will win the nom? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 09:48:47 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
Rick Santorum now the GOP frontrunner nationally in several polls.
Awesome. That's even better news for the President than if it had been Gingrich.
Indeed. It assures my voting for Obama. :D
It assures most of the nation will, too.
Nothing like now for the GOP to declare war on women. Again.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 09:55:39 AM
So how many actually think Santorum will win the nom? :rolleyes:
Not me. Maybe Poppa Bush and his multicolored socks will garrote the backroom at the convention and we get Jeb.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2012, 09:58:45 AM
and we get Jeb.
Oh, dear Lord.
You do realize that prior to 2000, Dubya was always considered the Smart One, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2012, 09:58:45 AM
and we get Jeb.
Oh, dear Lord.
You do realize that prior to 2000, Dubya was always considered the Smart One, right?
I'll take a Bush anytime over this crop of retards running right now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2012, 09:58:45 AM
and we get Jeb.
Oh, dear Lord.
You do realize that prior to 2000, Dubya was always considered the Smart One, right?
xThought it was the other way around.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 14, 2012, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2012, 09:58:45 AM
and we get Jeb.
Oh, dear Lord.
You do realize that prior to 2000, Dubya was always considered the Smart One, right?
xThought it was the other way around.
Same here. At least Jeb sounds fluent in English (and is IIRC also fluent in Spanish)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
He also imposed price controls, lost control of the budget, was forced into a humiliating reatreat from Bretton Woods by France, wasted thousands for American lives on a flawed US strategy in Vietnam, was forced into another humiliating retreat there and got outfoxed at the negotiating table, brought America its first experience of stagflation, repeatedly and flargrantly violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs and oh yes, directed a plot to subvert American democracy.
Other than that, terrific.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 09:55:39 AM
So how many actually think Santorum will win the nom? :rolleyes:
It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2012, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
He also imposed price controls, lost control of the budget, was forced into a humiliating reatreat from Bretton Woods by France, wasted thousands for American lives on a flawed US strategy in Vietnam, was forced into another humiliating retreat there and got outfoxed at the negotiating table, brought America its first experience of stagflation, repeatedly and flargrantly violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs and oh yes, directed a plot to subvert American democracy.
Other than that, terrific.
Subvert American democracy? :rolleyes:
The whole Vietnam thing is irrelevant. Sure, the US was utterly defeated, but at least Nixon ensured that the Vietnamese knew they had been in a fight. The only strategy that might have saved Vietnam from communism, an invasion of North Vietnam (requiring millions of US troops), was off the table due to Johnson's pussyfooting around the issue. Simply surrendering Vietnam to the communists without a fight was not an option either.
Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
'I've visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.
China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.'
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/ (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F02%2F13%2Fopinion%2Fcs-merkel%2Fcs-merkel-blog480.jpg&hash=35e91d65e91638fda113ee802d573ab66561356f)
Because Americans that go into the sciences and mathematics are socially awkward and introverted. It's not a good match.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
Because Americans that go into the sciences and mathematics are socially awkward and introverted. It's not a good match.
And too smart to get involved in that weasel mudwrestling pen we call politics. In order to be a politician, you have to be that rare combination of ambitious, stupid and self-entitled.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2012, 07:50:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 04:24:16 AM
Well, as Al pointed out, there's a lot in that post that's just straight-up incorrect, too. :P
Anyway, the top rate should be around 50%, I'd say. But the bigger issue is taxing capital gains fairly. I'd be willing to believe that "fairly" would be at more than the income tax top rate, but it should at least be equal.
An issue here is that many capital gains (including dividends that are taxed at the capital gains rate) are a form of corporate earnings. Corporate earnings are taxed at 35% (with additional state taxes), which is behind only Japan in the developed world. So if I get a dividend from Microsoft, while I only pay 15% on that, it has already been taxed at 35%.
Limited liability by statutory fiat isn't free.
Iirc (been a while since tax) there are various methods of reducing taxable capital gains income, as well, which people use/abuse.
Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 11:11:35 AM
It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.
It will be the Mormon. It's Mitt's turn.
Santorum would almost push me to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Almost.
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent.
American anti-intellectualism has been a facet of American life and society since before the Revolution.
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent know-it-all types.
FYP
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 11:11:35 AM
It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.
It will be the Mormon. It's Mitt's turn.
Santorum would almost push me to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Almost.
On what grounds? I mean, I know why I would never vote for Santorum even if I could, but what is it about him that is
almost repulsive enough for you to not vote for him?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:04:24 PM
Limited liability by statutory fiat isn't free.
The vast majority of corporations don't pay corporate income tax, and there are a number of legal structures (LLC, LLP, etc.) that also avoid corporate income tax but get limited liability.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2012, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
But he authorized air war, founded the EPA, and opened China (it's not his fault that worked out so poorly). It's a backhanded compliment, but Nixon may be the best/only good Republican president since Lincoln. I guess Eisenhower was OK.
He also imposed price controls, lost control of the budget, was forced into a humiliating reatreat from Bretton Woods by France, wasted thousands for American lives on a flawed US strategy in Vietnam, was forced into another humiliating retreat there and got outfoxed at the negotiating table, brought America its first experience of stagflation, repeatedly and flargrantly violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs and oh yes, directed a plot to subvert American democracy.
Other than that, terrific.
NIXON SHOCK! But seriously, was there any way around that? I don't know that much about the subject.
But as for the rest: political corruption minus one, EPA plus one billion. And like I said, he was only one of the best Republican presidents (Eisenhower may be better, and I forgot about Roosevelt); and, viz. Democratic presidents, I said that he was better than Wilson and Carter only (and I meant president, not person; Wilson played a major role in setting up World War II, and although WWII was in many ways a net good, it's still not the best of all possible outcomes; and whatever else Carter might have been good for, the impotence with which America responded to an act of war by Iran was probably the greatest humiliation suffered by the United States in the 20th century).
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:04:24 PM
Limited liability by statutory fiat isn't free.
The vast majority of corporations don't pay corporate income tax, and there are a number of legal structures (LLC, LLP, etc.) that also avoid corporate income tax but get limited liability.
Sorry,
shouldn't be free.
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 11:11:35 AM
It's a curious quirk of fate that it's likely either a Mormon or a Catholic will win the Republican nomination.
It will be the Mormon. It's Mitt's turn.
Santorum would almost push me to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Almost.
On what grounds? I mean, I know why I would never vote for Santorum even if I could, but what is it about him that is almost repulsive enough for you to not vote for him?
Derspeiss is perhaps a bit like me, he votes against people more than for them.
I mean, if they ran Kucinich, I'd still bite the bullet just to vote against the GOP.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:21:35 PM
Sorry, shouldn't be free.
That really doesn't make sense to me. If I eat something from Frito Lay, I have no reasonable expectation that I can recover anything from some random guy with stock in his account if I get food poisoning. Why should the government charge for an arrangement that is the only one that makes rational sense?
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
On what grounds? I mean, I know why I would never vote for Santorum even if I could, but what is it about him that is almost repulsive enough for you to not vote for him?
He's too much a social conservative when what we need IMO is fiscal conservatism. He speaks too much about his religion for my liking. And I think he's too soft when it comes to illegal immigration (which I'm guessing comes from his Catholicism). I fear a Santorum presidency would be a return to Compassionate Conservatism and that's something we can't afford.
Plus, on a base level I never really liked him, despite Marty's best efforts to push me in that direction by posting a couple anti-Santorum rants.
That said, presidential elections are a binary choice. The only scenario where I would make a protest vote for a third party candidate is if the election was sure to be a landslide either way.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent know-it-all types.
FYP
Yeah, that's the usual pretext used to justify the behavior Berkut described in the unmodified post.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2012, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:21:35 PM
Sorry, shouldn't be free.
That really doesn't make sense to me. If I eat something from Frito Lay, I have no reasonable expectation that I can recover anything from some random guy with stock in his account if I get food poisoning. Why should the government charge for an arrangement that is the only one that makes rational sense?
Gotta go to work now (these dummies probably
are organized as a partnership), but I'll respond to this later.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:23:26 PM
Derspeiss is perhaps a bit like me, he votes against people more than for them.
I mean, if they ran Kucinich, I'd still bite the bullet just to vote against the GOP.
It's not like I want it that way-- it just happens to be the most uninspiring group of primary candidates since I started voting.
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent know-it-all types.
FYP
Yeah, that's the usual pretext used to justify the behavior Berkut described in the unmodified post.
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se. They just happen to also place a high value on personality and dislike being lectured to. Clinton was supposedly rather intelligent, but that didn't seem to get in the way of him winning the popular vote-- twice.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
Because Americans for some reason have an active contempt for the exceptionally intelligent know-it-all types.
FYP
Yeah, that's the usual pretext used to justify the behavior Berkut described in the unmodified post.
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se. They just happen to also place a high value on personality and dislike being lectured to. Clinton was supposedly rather intelligent, but that didn't seem to get in the way of him winning the popular vote-- twice.
He never won a majority of the popular vote. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2FemoteLecture.gif&hash=2d6e3dedc4e677329ca9786811f958767ce950b8)
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 03:52:24 PM
He never won a majority of the popular vote. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2FemoteLecture.gif&hash=2d6e3dedc4e677329ca9786811f958767ce950b8)
True, but he was clearly considered the most likable of all three candidates in both elections. Plus he had an impressive approval rating (generally a reflection of popularity) through his tenure.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 03:52:24 PM
He never won a majority of the popular vote. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2FemoteLecture.gif&hash=2d6e3dedc4e677329ca9786811f958767ce950b8)
He was never a supreme court justice either. So what? Why do Republicans like to bring that up?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 03:52:24 PM
He never won a majority of the popular vote. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2FemoteLecture.gif&hash=2d6e3dedc4e677329ca9786811f958767ce950b8)
He was never a supreme court justice either. So what? Why do Republicans like to bring that up?
I suspect for the same reason that you harp on about many of the inane things you do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 07:29:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2012, 06:53:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2012, 04:58:13 PM
No the only thing I could recall is that a few years back she resisted proposed creditor friendly amendments to the bankruptcy laws that were being pushed by the credit card industry.
You yourself a page back or so said she advocates loan foregiveness as part of bankruptcy. Am I missing some key point here?
Yes. Individual bankruptcies in the US amost always involve forgiveness of loans. that has been so for many years now.
This is something Europe could learn from the USA. Here in Norway personal bankrupcies often result in permanent bankrupcy where the individual can be left liable for all the loans for life. It is often a personal hell and is very highly stigmatized by society. If you went bankrupt it's your own fault you were a bad/immoral/spendthrift person etc. Going personally bankrupt without loan and debt forgiveness results in people ending up as permanent wards of the state where any income they might have is taken from them to pay their often unpayable debts and the bankrupt person is on welfare for life with no incentive to work.
American style Chapter 11 bankrupcy protection is also often not available. I know that some countries in Europe (the UK iirc) are trying to import some aspects of it but in other less capitalist friendly places like norway your creditors can sue you for unpayed bills and have the court sieze your assets and sell them.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 14, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
I suspect for the same reason that you harp on about many of the inane things you do.
I can buy that. The whole of the GOP is insane and mentally unfit to hold any office.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se. They just happen to also place a high value on personality and dislike being lectured to. Clinton was supposedly rather intelligent, but that didn't seem to get in the way of him winning the popular vote-- twice.
So, being intelligent is fine, as long as you hide it.
Kind of like herpes.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.
Yes, they do. It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.
There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.
Yes, they do. It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.
There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.
Same over here, my childhood friend got roundly booed at college when he went up to collect his award for high academic achievement, even allowing for some Languishites, still perhaps one of the very brightest people I've ever met. And they knew that as well, hence the booing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.
Yes, they do. It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.
There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.
Only if he is socially inept.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:43:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:23:26 PM
Derspeiss is perhaps a bit like me, he votes against people more than for them.
I mean, if they ran Kucinich, I'd still bite the bullet just to vote against the GOP.
It's not like I want it that way-- it just happens to be the most uninspiring group of primary candidates since I started voting.
Hey, me either. I'd
like a much better president than Obama.
But at least you have, ah, choices? :P
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 10:26:50 PM
Hey, me either. I'd like a much better president than Obama.
Then why'd you back John Edwards? :huh:
John Edwards would have ended the recession through sheer force of will, and then let me drive a tank through USC Law before appointing me Secretary of the Air Force and director of the CFPB.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 10:34:48 PM
John Edwards would have ended the recession through sheer force of will, and then let me drive a tank through USC Law before appointing me Secretary of the Air Force and director of the CFPB.
That bad?
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 06:30:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.
Yes, they do. It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.
There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.
Only if he is socially inept.
While I agree - it is a little more than that. It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2012, 04:54:48 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 14, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
I suspect for the same reason that you harp on about many of the inane things you do.
I can buy that. The whole of the GOP is insane and mentally unfit to hold any office.
:lol:
:hug:
Santorum up 7 pts in Ohio.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 08:31:16 AM
Santorum up 7 pts in Ohio.
Can Huntsman re-enter the race?
This is like the 16 year old infatuation. "I love you so much I will kill myself to prove it!"
The GOP seems hell bent on forced retardation, having already been beaten there by the Dems.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:44:26 PM
While I agree - it is a little more than that. It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.
It is hard to be the everyman when you are rich and/or well educated.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 08:31:16 AM
Santorum up 7 pts in Ohio.
White Catholic working class Reagan Republicans are probably Sanctorum's natural constituency.
Quote from: PDH on February 15, 2012, 09:36:44 AM
This is like the 16 year old infatuation. "I love you so much I will kill myself to prove it!"
The GOP seems hell bent on forced retardation, having already been beaten there by the Dems.
yes. The legacy of the baby boomers will be that of scorched earth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2012, 10:32:50 AM
He also imposed price controls, lost control of the budget, was forced into a humiliating reatreat from Bretton Woods by France, wasted thousands for American lives on a flawed US strategy in Vietnam, was forced into another humiliating retreat there and got outfoxed at the negotiating table, brought America its first experience of stagflation, repeatedly and flargrantly violated the Constitution with illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs and oh yes, directed a plot to subvert American democracy.
Other than that In other words, terrific.
FYP. Those who like Nixon are the kinds of people who like exactly the things you dislike. You know. Morons.
Santorum is tainting sweater vests. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
White Catholic working class Reagan Republicans are probably Sanctorum's natural constituency.
Agreed. I think the rust belt should be one of his best areas. What'll be interesting is how he does in the South on Super Tuesday and if, then, we find out where Romney's natural constituency lies or if it is just New England and the Mormon West.
I think the GOP should go for Santorum.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 14, 2012, 02:53:17 PM
Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?
'I've visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.
China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.'
I don't get the point of this. Singapore is, at best, a heavily managed democracy still kind of run in the image of the Minister-Mentor. Looking up Tony Tan he's been a Minister in some form or other for the past 30 years and his main competitor (interestingly a Doctor) was also from the PAP. I don't think this indicates anything more than preference within the Singaporean leadership for this sort of background, which is hardly surprising if you read anything the Minister-Mentor's ever said, especially on education.
China's a dictatorship. It's hardly surprising that their leadership's very often drawn from a similar pool. Though I think in China it tends to be a generational thing. The Fourth Generation (Hu-Wen) have lots of engineers and I think the Third Generation (Jiang) did too, the Fifth Generation (currently being chosen) is likely to have lots of businessmen, finance grads and princelings. I think it looks to have very few scientists or engineers. Obviously the Mao and Deng generations were primarily made up of revolutionaries.
Maybe it's striking that managed democracies and dictatorships perhaps lean more to 'technocratic' backgrounds not someone who can effectively press the flesh (as, say, Bill could though he's very intelligent). But I really don't get the relevance of Merkel or Thatcher. Their backgrounds are exceptional, I don't think it really indicates anything they were very rare for being scientists but I don't think it had much bearing on how they performed as PM or Chancellor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
I think the GOP should go for Santorum.
I'd be rooting for that as well if I were on your side :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 12:28:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
I think the GOP should go for Santorum.
I'd be rooting for that as well if I were on your side :P
British or gay?
EDITED: I forgot. Catholic :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 12:28:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
I think the GOP should go for Santorum.
I'd be rooting for that as well if I were on your side :P
:lol: Not at all.
I think Romney would be a disaster for the Republicans. He'd lose and I think the base would rightly go insane at the betrayal by the establishment in foisting such a shocking candidate on them because he's allegedly electable. Then I think you'd see a few years of wandering in a populist wilderness. I think Romney's basically the anti-Goldwater.
On Santorum I think he's got convictions which matters. Personally I quite like him, I think he comes across best of the remaining candidates (Republicans like him most too, he's got the best favourables by a mile) and generally I think you should vote for the candidate you like rather than trying to jiu-jitsu your opponent into the candidate you think they don't want to face. That way lies John Kerry.
Finally I like Huckabee and I agree with David Brooks. The last few elections the GOP's most important vote has been the white working class and I think that's reflected in candidacies like Huckabee and Santorum who are both culturally conservative with a bit of economically populist rhetoric - though no more than rhetoric. Santorum's not the idea candidate to express that, neither was Huckabee, but I think they're both pointing in the direction the GOP's heading in the next few elections.
Also I don't think Romney deserves the nomination because he's not effectively won it by now - and I really do think it's as much his campaign's failures and complacency that's led to this situation. He looks, as he is, like a man who's only ever won one election even though he's been running for something for almost 20 years. By contrast Santorum, for all of his faults, has so far been a very impressive retail candidate with good organisation and all the rest.
Shelf, your post reminds me of that thread you started a while back about how the best way for the Tories to regain power was to adopt communist economic policies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
Shelf, your post reminds me of that thread you started a while back about how the best way for the Tories to regain power was to adopt communist economic policies.
What Red Toryism? It wasn't communism and there wasn't a great deal of policy. The guy was and maybe still is influential in Tory circles though.
Edit: And you'll note I said rhetoric. Santorum and Huck were very, very right wing economically - at least in their Presidential runs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
On Santorum I think he's got convictions which matters. Personally I quite like him, I think he comes across best of the remaining candidates (Republicans like him most too, he's got the best favourables by a mile) and generally I think you should vote for the candidate you like rather than trying to jiu-jitsu your opponent into the candidate you think they don't want to face.
Don't know why; Santorum would have your gay ass institutionalized.
Although when somebody as socially conservative comes along like Santorum, who is so adamantly anti-women and anti-gay, you just know he's either 1) a pathological submissive, or 2) has had plenty of cock in his time.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 06:30:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.
Yes, they do. It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.
There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.
Only if he is socially inept.
While I agree - it is a little more than that. It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.
Lol Golden Gate.
Sheilbh, I think you are off on a few points.
Huckabee was running on a platform of repealing the income tax. That isn't just conservatism with a populist streak--it is crazy.
Santorum is a lightweight. He isn't distinguished academically, in the private sector, or in the public sector. He recently said that he was willing to die on the fighting gay marriage hill. He has promised to use the presidency to discuss the evils of birth control. He was a crappy senator that lost reelection by 18 points. He might be a decent and principled guy, but he isn't presidential.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 06:30:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.
Yes, they do. It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.
There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.
Only if he is socially inept.
While I agree - it is a little more than that. It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.
Pretty funny, but a bit off: never met a Princeton grad or Stanford grad that didn't feel compelled to not inform me of their alma mater 15 minutes in. LULZ I ATTENDED WHEN CONDI WAS THERE YOU KNOW
Maybe it's just a Left Coast thing.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 15, 2012, 03:21:11 PM
Huckabee was running on a platform of repealing the income tax. That isn't just conservatism with a populist streak--it is crazy.
I'm not convinced that's not where the GOP's been heading the past few years.
QuoteSantorum is a lightweight. He isn't distinguished academically, in the private sector, or in the public sector. He recently said that he was willing to die on the fighting gay marriage hill. He has promised to use the presidency to discuss the evils of birth control. He was a crappy senator that lost reelection by 18 points. He might be a decent and principled guy, but he isn't presidential.
I agree with everything you've said. But I think you're judging him too harshly, by the objective standards of running for President. He should be judged by the very different standards of running for President against this field of Republican candidates. Santorum is more credible than anyone but Romney or Huntsman and I think he's a more effective candidate than either of them.
Edit: And to be fair he may have been a bad Senator who lost by almost 20 points (in 2006, to be fair) but before that he'd won election and re-election to the House (in a very Democratic district), then election and re-election to the Senate. For all his faults he has a history of actually succeeding in campaigns.
Romney on the other hand lost his Senate election by around 17% (in 1994), won election for Governor. Then decided not to run for re-election (in 2006) because he possibly would have lost and he wanted to run for President. He lost the primary in 2008 and so far has seen his number of votes fall in almost every state since. Looking at his polling among independents or his style of campaign I have absolutely no idea how he got the reputation of being the electable one.
Sheilbh, I don't give Huckabee a pass for being crazy because the republican party is going crazy.
For Santorum, if you are grading on a curve against the republican field, he does look better. And Romney is a terrible campaigner. And Romney is the most cynically unprincipled politician ever. But you can't take from Romney that he is actually a heavyweight in business and has skills leading large organizations, which to me is more credible than what Santorum brings to the table.
I have no interest in voting for Romney against Obama, but I'd rather a credible president get the nomination. First, the candidate might win, second, if Obama's popularity dives and he wins reelection by default, that doesn't bode well for the atmosphere in government the next four years.
Was Huntsman actually credible as a presidential candidate? He was like a better class of Romney, but without the tons of cash and the organization.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 15, 2012, 03:36:03 PM
For Santorum, if you are grading on a curve against the republican field, he does look better. And Romney is a terrible campaigner. And Romney is the most cynically unprincipled politician ever. But you can't take from Romney that he is actually a heavyweight in business and has skills leading large organizations, which to me is more credible than what Santorum brings to the table.
I think the principles and the campaign and communication elements of the job actually matter more than management skills or anything like that. No President actually has the skills to be President when they take office - maybe Eisenhower came close - but every one of them needs to be able to communicate effectively and have people believe in them. I've seen nothing that suggests Romney's got either. It's like he's had the soul bled out of him by political consultants.
I'd add that I also think the skills required in a successful businessman are rather different than those of a successful political leader, which is probably why so few make the jump successfully. I'm reminded of that Tony Blair line 'It's like when people say to me: "Oh, So-and-So, they don't believe in anything, they're just a good communicator." As a statement about politics, it's close to being an oxymoron.'
QuoteI have no interest in voting for Romney against Obama, but I'd rather a credible president get the nomination. First, the candidate might win, second, if Obama's popularity dives and he wins reelection by default, that doesn't bode well for the atmosphere in government the next four years.
I wouldn't vote for him, but I think Santorum is credible.
It's extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which Santorum beats Obama.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:54:47 PM
I wouldn't vote for him, but I think Santorum is credible.
Name one useful thing he did in 16 years in Congress.
I keep getting the impression Shelf is out of touch with reality.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 15, 2012, 03:59:53 PM
It's extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which Santorum beats Obama.
But I struggle to see Romney winning either. I'd probably say Romney's the stronger candidate but I'm not convinced. In recent polls they both do about as well as each other against Obama. Romney's approval among independents is plummeting and I don't understand who his base is yet, maybe they'll emerge. Santorum will also do poorly against independents as time goes on.
But I think they're two reasonably credible candidates unlike, say, Newt or Ron Paul. They're not great but it's like the difference between Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann.
The only right-wing politician who looks like beating Obama right now is Merkel. At this point I think the economy needs to take a severe beating, or there to be some sort of dreadful disaster for either of them to win.
What do you mean by credible Shelf?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:54:47 PM
I wouldn't vote for him, but I think Santorum is credible.
Name one useful thing he did in 16 years in Congress.
Wasn't he in the gang of seven?
But I don't actually think that's how voters decide.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
What do you mean by credible Shelf?
A believable, plausible candidate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:11:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:54:47 PM
I wouldn't vote for him, but I think Santorum is credible.
Name one useful thing he did in 16 years in Congress.
Wasn't he in the gang of seven?
Rephrased and bolded for emphasis.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:13:41 PM
A believable, plausible candidate.
I still don't follow. You mean he speaks the truth or if GOP announced at the convention that Santorum were the candidate you would believe that he was in fact the candidate?
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2012, 06:30:02 PMOnly if he is socially inept.
While I agree - it is a little more than that. It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.
I think that kind of illustrates the point.
I mean, someone might be super smart but if they keep showing that off all the time - you know mentioning that they went to Princeton or Stanford and expecting people to be impressed, or raising their hand in class and answering all the teacher's questions while everyone else is struggling with the material - then it's not too surprising that people might resent it.
Being unable to manage that - being unable to communicate that you don't consider yourself a better person because of your achievements - could be construed as a kind of social ineptitude.
Quote from: katmai on February 15, 2012, 04:09:06 PM
I keep getting the impression Shelf is out of touch with reality.
I keep getting the impression he doesn't recognize Americans as humans, and more like props in some sort of elaborate show put on for his amusement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:13:41 PM
A believable, plausible candidate.
I still don't follow. You mean he speaks the truth or if GOP announced at the convention that Santorum were the candidate you would believe that he was in fact the candidate?
I think it's the former. By Shaun's standards, I would be a very credible Democratic candidate, apparently even at the national level.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 04:17:06 PM
I still don't follow. You mean he speaks the truth or if GOP announced at the convention that Santorum were the candidate you would believe that he was in fact the candidate?
No I mean he comes across as someone who could be candidate. The difference between Kerry and Dean (alas), as I say Perry and Bachmann, or Gingrich and Santorum. In 2008 both parties had a number of credible alternatives, in 2012 I think the GOP's got far fewer.
Basically candidates who you can imagine, with the right circumstances and if the other party nominates someone incredibly weak, could win.
Quote from: katmai on February 15, 2012, 04:09:06 PM
I keep getting the impression Shelf is out of touch with reality.
I think he simply like the drama and show of politics rather then actual governing.
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2012, 04:18:53 PM
I think that kind of illustrates the point.
I mean, someone might be super smart but if they keep showing that off all the time - you know mentioning that they went to Princeton or Stanford and expecting people to be impressed, or raising their hand in class and answering all the teacher's questions while everyone else is struggling with the material - then it's not too surprising that people might resent it.
Being unable to manage that - being unable to communicate that you don't consider yourself a better person because of your achievements - could be construed as a kind of social ineptitude.
In both examples (which are actually the same with the David Sedaris tale being a humour take on it) it comes up when someone asks you pointedly where you went to school. Rather than seem elitist by mentioning where they actually went - they try to stall and hopefully whoever it is loses interest. Sort of similar is not actually wearing a branded college shirt in public because it may be perceived as an attempt to show off.
I think it is closer to what PDH said:
QuoteIt is hard to be the everyman when you are rich and/or well educated.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 04:18:59 PMI keep getting the impression he doesn't recognize Americans as humans, and more like props in some sort of elaborate show put on for his amusement.
:lol: Politics is and should be mostly to do with emotions, personality and a gut connection. I think that's the useful aspect of a campaign - especially the American Presidential one - is that it's grueling enough to reveal something of the candidates' personalities.
I've had this problem with Romney for years and I think I'm right about it to be honest. Whether he was a conservative or moderate, Mormon or Evangelical I think he doesn't connect and that's his problem.
The extent that policy matters during a campaign is that journalists will look it over and it'll percolate through whether they're realistic or not; whether they're credible, I suppose.
But even then sentiment and tone matters more. If you read Huntsman's platform and record he was probably one of the most rock-ribbed conservatives up there. But that's not how he sounded, it's not how he ran and it's not the message the media went with. Similarly I argued in 2008 that Obama was a centrist Blairite, I still think he is and that the hopes put in him by the left were largely because they weren't paying attention.
QuoteI think he simply like the drama and show of politics rather then actual governing.
I'm not a politician so I've not got to worry about either. I enjoy campaigns and the show of politics and I think it should be fun. But I've got pretty clear ideas on a few subjects I know about.
But I don't dislike a politician just because I disagree with them, however strongly. I quite like John Boehner, but I find Eric Cantor genuinely unpleasant and I imagine I'd disagree with them both on about 90% of subjects and would never vote for anyone like them. It seems sad to limit your sympathy to people you agree with.
Edit: Incidentally on policy the thing I like most about Santorum is his linking of family to social mobility and the economy. It reminds me of Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat's 'Grand New Party' and the inspiration, Pawlenty's 'Sam's Club Republicanism'. He's not the perfect messenger but I am glad it's getting an airing and I think it's a useful way for conservatives to go.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:47:24 PM
QuoteI think he simply like the drama and show of politics rather then actual governing.
I'm not a politician so I've not got to worry about either.
I understand that this was in the midst of a light hearted post but this statement is kind of bizarre. Governance is what affects our lives.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 04:50:19 PM
I understand that this was in the midst of a light hearted post but this statement is kind of bizarre. Governance is what affects our lives.
I'm not clear what it means?
To me it's the Minister making the shift from playing it up in Parliament to reading briefing papers in his office. Actually governing is an act that politicians do.
Santorum has picked up the hotly contested endorsement of: Dave Mustane :lol:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/megadeth-frontman-backs-rick-santorum-114539.html
What's odd is that I often misread this thread title as "GOP Primary Megadeth".
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:27:54 PM
I agree with everything you've said. But I think you're judging him too harshly, by the objective standards of running for President.
"Objective standards of running for President"?
The objective standard is not to be a fundie fucktard that wants to wage war on bullshit the majority of the American people don't want to listen to.
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
Santorum has picked up the hotly contested endorsement of: Dave Mustane :lol:
You'd think Dave was more of a Mitt fan.
"Hello Me, this is the Real Me."
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 04:18:59 PM
I keep getting the impression he doesn't recognize Americans as humans, and more like props in some sort of elaborate show put on for his amusement.
To be fair, there is something to be said for that ... ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:47:24 PM
I quite like John Boehner,
I hate him because of the color of his skin. I am racist against orange people.
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
Santorum has picked up the hotly contested endorsement of: Dave Mustane :lol:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/megadeth-frontman-backs-rick-santorum-114539.html
What's odd is that I often misread this thread title as "GOP Primary Megadeth".
I can't imagine anyone who would be better for Heavy Metal music generally than Rick Santorum. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
Santorum has picked up the hotly contested endorsement of: Dave Mustane :lol:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/megadeth-frontman-backs-rick-santorum-114539.html
What's odd is that I often misread this thread title as "GOP Primary Megadeth".
What?? The same guy who wrote
Peace Sells? Cognitive dissonance, man.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 04:41:16 PMIn both examples (which are actually the same with the David Sedaris tale being a humour take on it) it comes up when someone asks you pointedly where you went to school. Rather than seem elitist by mentioning where they actually went - they try to stall and hopefully whoever it is loses interest. Sort of similar is not actually wearing a branded college shirt in public because it may be perceived as an attempt to show off.
I think it is closer to what PDH said:
QuoteIt is hard to be the everyman when you are rich and/or well educated.
I don't really think the two things are contradictory.
If someone asks you pointedly where you went to school, it's possible - if you're socially adept - to tell them in a way that doesn't destroy the "everyman" air or positions you as thinking you're better than other people. Obviously, the more unique your circumstances - be it wealth, education or other class markers - the more challenging it is.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 06:37:44 PM
I can't imagine anyone who would be better for Heavy Metal music generally than Rick Santorum. ;)
:lol:
:( I wish I'd said that.
Personally, I much more interested in the nuts and bolts of government. Can bills move through Congress? Is the bureaucracy running well? Is the government doing a good job in procurement. Are regulations being enforced? Are our roads in good shape? Do our enemies fear us and do our Allies respect us. Can the military kill people adequately? The horse race and drama are mildly amusing, but at the end of the day I want the a government that actually works. For the same reason, I don't regard many of the hot button or wedge issues very highly. Prayer in school, is not really that important compared to whether water quality regulations are being upheld. Admittedly water regulation is less interesting to a lot of people, but that shit is important.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2012, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2012, 03:21:35 PM
Sorry, shouldn't be free.
That really doesn't make sense to me. If I eat something from Frito Lay, I have no reasonable expectation that I can recover anything from some random guy with stock in his account if I get food poisoning. Why should the government charge for an arrangement that is the only one that makes rational sense?
OK.
Firstly, caveat emptor? Really?
Secondly, you will concede that your food poisoning has social costs, right? That it's not just your individual problem?
Thirdly, if the damage done by a corporation is great enough, it will not be able to fix it, but its constituent actors will escape liability. This is obvious, of course, as it is the essence of limited liability. But is it fair that people can profit when they do good things, but avoid consequences then they turn catastrophic? Moral hazard much?
Fourthly, despite the corporate shareholders basic if attenuated responsibility for damages done in their name, it's far more administratively convenient to charge either a corporate income tax, or a capital gains tax, or both, as a form of "social insurance" paid by all limited liability entities, to make up for the social harms some of them commit, by financing a strong, rich government, which will ameliorate that harm either through its functioning courts or through its generous social safety net.
Fifthly, I'm pretty sure LLCs and similar have to pay some kind of taxes, I'm just not sure what, and my copy of the IRC was destroyed in a tragic accident.
Sixthly, there are other good reasons for corporate/capital gains taxes to be higher; specifically, non-labor income is less valuable from a moral point of view; and also because the taxer is the state and the taxee is not. :frog:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 04:18:59 PMI keep getting the impression he doesn't recognize Americans as humans, and more like props in some sort of elaborate show put on for his amusement.
:lol: Politics is and should be mostly to do with emotions, personality and a gut connection.
I dunno. Too much in this world already has to do with emotions, personality, and gut connection. I want to vote for a candidate, not fuck him.
(Maybe Nancy Pelosi.)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2Fnancy-pelosi-young-490x656.jpg&hash=945cbeefca64e0396543f5af59e15e14b03ea428)
Yeah, the Bang Bus. Bow chicka bow wow.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 06:31:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 04:18:59 PM
I keep getting the impression he doesn't recognize Americans as humans, and more like props in some sort of elaborate show put on for his amusement.
To be fair, there is something to be said for that ... ;)
One day, we're gonna take off our hat. :angry:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
Yeah, the Bang Bus. Bow chicka bow wow.
It almost looks like an entirely different face. Huh. :)
She got old. Give her a break. She's still not bad looking for her age cohort, and the eyes are the same. :)
Also, Gabrielle Giffords is pretty hot even though she got shot in the head. I remember that time someone posted a picture of her during recovery and I said I liked her new haircut. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:32:37 PM
She got old. Give her a break. She's still not bad looking for her age cohort, and the eyes are the same. :)
I was trying to make a joke about her love affair with plastic surgery. :(
I'm not familiar with her personal history, only that she's both electable and technically erectable.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:40:24 PM
I'm not familiar with her personal history, only that she's both electable and technically erectable.
Well, so was Bill Clinton.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2Fgabrielle-giffords-300.jpg&hash=2e01bc1f8b112e6d23775edd21538fc14cbe9394)
:mmm:
Is it crass to say that the best thing to come out of that was she stopped bleaching her fucking hair and got a haircut that doesn't look like she's a time traveler from 1959?
Amyway, all GOPtards got is that Alaskan who moves like she's got Parkinson's and Lady Ghoulface; our side can take bullets to their skulls and come out age cohort 9s.
But seriously, she's a great person, with great policies. And she's married to an astronaut. Why don't I ever get to vote for anyone like that?
We had John fucking Glenn, who would bend a commie in half.
Even though I thought he was a mediocre senator.
Personally, I find Ide's thinness fetish creepy. I'm more in the Cal boat when it comes to things like that.
John Glenn would have been a great President. Man, I'm glad I don't remember the Democratic party of the 1980's. Mondale? Really?
Women have a wide range of body types, Raz. From size 00 to size 4.
Santorum now gets to the sit in the frontrunner seat for the first time this election. What has happened to each (not-Romney) candidate who has (temporarily) sat there?
Look to the debate next week. Santoorum will get gang-raped.
Romney has never run an anti-Santorum TV ad yet. That will change.
Gingrich's billionaire bankroller Sheldon Adelson has signaled that he will give millions more to Gingrich's Super PAC to help knock Santorum from the top. Adelson said Romney is his backup candidate.
Romney will fend off Santorum this month. But then he will turn around a face another surge from Gingrich. :D
And Paul still has a significant role to play.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 11:12:29 PM
John Glenn would have been a great President. Man, I'm glad I don't remember the Democratic party of the 1980's. Mondale? Really?
It was a rough time. WHY NOT MARIO WHY NOT????
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 09:35:41 PM
Personally, I much more interested in the nuts and bolts of government. Can bills move through Congress? Is the bureaucracy running well? Is the government doing a good job in procurement. Are regulations being enforced? Are our roads in good shape? Do our enemies fear us and do our Allies respect us. Can the military kill people adequately? The horse race and drama are mildly amusing, but at the end of the day I want the a government that actually works.
But how you define the answers to those questions will differ based on ideology and priorities. Similarly the policies you decide to implement will change. The key is to successfully link the policies that you want to deliver, the metrics of success that you want to measure to the horserace and to a grander campaign. Without that you end up with the European Commission or the Green Party: well-meaning, occasionally interesting, generally futile.
This is what I mean about the American left annoying me is that they often seem so interested in governing that they actually forget there are voters. I remember during the healthcare debate the number of times I'd read left-wing writers and politicians proposing this wonky way of working an individual mandates vs this form of single payer. There were endless reams of polls showing that actually people quite like the idea if you explain it to them. All of this was being hashed out in public and in the private committees of which we got innumerable articles.
All the while Republicans went out there and campaigned against it. They had a simple clear message and they explained it to the voters. Because of that they were far more successful at defining popular impressions of the reform. And I remember wondering in all of this where were the left? I saw a pathetic amount of explaining of the options, or of campaigning for healthcare. This should have been a moral crusade and it wasn't because too many liberals, in my view, are too into governing. They look and act like New Dealers who don't realise they've lost their majority. Weirdly we're going through almost exactly the same thing but in reverse on healthcare right now with the cack-handed coalition reforms.
I think that part of the reason Obama's started to succeed a little bit more (as well, of course, as the economy) is that they're linking politics to government again which you have to do.
So it's absurd to disdain or ignore the stuff about how someone or a certain issue connects with voters, or what sort of campaign they're trying to create because that will tell you a huge amount about their governing style (as I say I've not been surprised by anything Obama's done so far because I think it's been very continuous from the campaign, from what I've read Clinton was the same). Much as I love Monti for his technocratic ideas I think his real success has been communication which give them a greater chance of success and a wider measure of public support.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2012, 07:14:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 11:12:29 PM
John Glenn would have been a great President. Man, I'm glad I don't remember the Democratic party of the 1980's. Mondale? Really?
It was a rough time. WHY NOT MARIO WHY NOT????
Don't worry you can get to vote for Andrew. Who, unlike his father (:wub:), is tribune of the homos.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2012, 08:05:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2012, 07:14:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 11:12:29 PM
John Glenn would have been a great President. Man, I'm glad I don't remember the Democratic party of the 1980's. Mondale? Really?
It was a rough time. WHY NOT MARIO WHY NOT????
Don't worry you can get to vote for Andrew. Who, unlike his father (:wub:), is tribune of the homos.
Mario was ahead of his time, far ahead than where Andrew is now. Mario was the greatest Presidential Candidate That Never Was.
And he gave one of the greatest speeches on the concept on public policy and personal morality of the 20th century; you should have read it by now
http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
Something some Republicans should read from time to time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2012, 09:24:11 AM
And he gave one of the greatest speeches on the concept on public policy and personal morality of the 20th century; you should have read it by now
http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
Something some Republicans should read from time to time.
No thanks.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:58:48 PM
Amyway, all GOPtards got is that Alaskan who moves like she's got Parkinson's and Lady Ghoulface; our side can take bullets to their skulls and come out age cohort 9s.
You're being a bit selective in your examples, to say the very least.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2012, 09:24:11 AM
Mario was ahead of his time, far ahead than where Andrew is now. Mario was the greatest Presidential Candidate That Never Was.
And he gave one of the greatest speeches on the concept on public policy and personal morality of the 20th century; you should have read it by now
http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
I'll give it a read. I've watched his 1984 convention speech which was brilliant, one of the best speeches I've ever seen.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
OK.
Firstly, caveat emptor? Really?
Secondly, you will concede that your food poisoning has social costs, right? That it's not just your individual problem?
Thirdly, if the damage done by a corporation is great enough, it will not be able to fix it, but its constituent actors will escape liability. This is obvious, of course, as it is the essence of limited liability. But is it fair that people can profit when they do good things, but avoid consequences then they turn catastrophic? Moral hazard much?
Fourthly, despite the corporate shareholders basic if attenuated responsibility for damages done in their name, it's far more administratively convenient to charge either a corporate income tax, or a capital gains tax, or both, as a form of "social insurance" paid by all limited liability entities, to make up for the social harms some of them commit, by financing a strong, rich government, which will ameliorate that harm either through its functioning courts or through its generous social safety net.
If anything I've said applies to caveat emptor, remember that it is the current state of affairs. If you suffer harm due to the actions of another party, you can only collect to the extent the party has assets subject to seizure. If you visit my home and I sell you rancid food that leaves you deathly ill and weakened for life, you may find most of my assets are protected and you are SOL (cars, primary residence, retirement accounts, pension plan).
There are social costs to that, but in the end corporate taxes aren't going to reimburse you. There are also social benefits to limited liability--which I think most agree offset the social costs. Limited liability has a very long tradition, and just as you know that you are assuming some risk when I sell you food that you may not be able to collect from any harm if I am insolvent, people assume some risk that the limited liabilty company won't be able to pay.
In the end, there isn't a "social insurance" charge for limited liability entities as most don't pay corporate taxes; only the few that don't qualify as a non taxible entity get hit with it (usually because they have too many owners). Which seems backwards to me: if you get diaherra from potato chips, you are much more likely to recover from a large business like Frito Lay than you are from a street vendor operating as a sole proprietorship.
Quote
Fifthly, I'm pretty sure LLCs and similar have to pay some kind of taxes, I'm just not sure what, and my copy of the IRC was destroyed in a tragic accident.
Sixthly, there are other good reasons for corporate/capital gains taxes to be higher; specifically, non-labor income is less valuable from a moral point of view; and also because the taxer is the state and the taxee is not. :frog:
LLCs and S Corps don't pay corporate income tax: their income passes through to the owners as personal income (which is only taxed once obviously). There is a good reason to have corporate taxes on large corps as providing this type of flow through to personal income could be an administrative challenge, but it certainly doesn't punish all non labor income. Much of the income from the entities that don't pay corporate income tax is also non labor.
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2012, 10:05:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:58:48 PM
Amyway, all GOPtards got is that Alaskan who moves like she's got Parkinson's and Lady Ghoulface; our side can take bullets to their skulls and come out age cohort 9s.
You're being a bit selective in your examples, to say the very least.
If he means Palin and Bachman they're both rather attractive for their age. And he conveniently ignores the existence of Janet Reno. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 16, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2012, 10:05:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:58:48 PM
Amyway, all GOPtards got is that Alaskan who moves like she's got Parkinson's and Lady Ghoulface; our side can take bullets to their skulls and come out age cohort 9s.
You're being a bit selective in your examples, to say the very least.
If he means Palin and Bachman they're both rather attractive for their age. And he conveniently ignores the existence of Janet Reno. ;)
What does he have to do with anything?
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2012, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2012, 09:24:11 AM
And he gave one of the greatest speeches on the concept on public policy and personal morality of the 20th century; you should have read it by now
http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
Something some Republicans should read from time to time.
No thanks.
Here, have foetus, bacon and cheese biscuit. Made them just fresh for breakfast.
Republican caucuses have been an utter joke and disgrace this year.
First, Iowa flip-flopped on its winner.
Then, Nevada took 2-3 days to release its full results.
And now the Maine GOP has decided to do a recount and include votes from the missing 16% of its precincts. Romney had previously been declared the winner with supposedly only 200 votes more than Paul.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 16, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2012, 10:05:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:58:48 PM
Amyway, all GOPtards got is that Alaskan who moves like she's got Parkinson's and Lady Ghoulface; our side can take bullets to their skulls and come out age cohort 9s.
You're being a bit selective in your examples, to say the very least.
If he means Palin and Bachman they're both rather attractive for their age. And he conveniently ignores the existence of Janet Reno. ;)
Sure, I'd fuck Palin if she could stay still and didn't speak, but Bachman is pretty gross.
Maybe there are attractive national-level Republican figures, but I'm just not aware of any (maybe Condi Rice, I guess).
There's that NY lt. gov or something with the big blonde hair who's not gruesome.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1a%2FMayor_Robert_Duffy.jpg&hash=ca43d22260e950b28ec10a6c3976e0fb749410f3)
I wouldn't call his hair big. :mellow:
Aw, Giffords resigned. I knew there was talk about it, but I wasn't sure she had yet. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 04:03:11 PM
I wouldn't call his hair big. :mellow:
So keep looking.:contract:
Yi probably means Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a US Senator, not a Lt. Governor.
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
Yi probably means Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a US Senator, not a Lt. Governor.
Yi: politically uninformed. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:32:16 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
Yi probably means Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a US Senator, not a Lt. Governor.
Yi: politically uninformed. :(
Smart man actually. Trying to keep up with the rats in government causes impotence.
wut
If Mitt loses Michigan he's gonna have problems
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2012, 01:56:32 AM
If Mitt loses Michigan he's gonna have problems
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
It doesnt matter. Who ever gets in there will be crushed by Obamanation.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:32:16 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
Yi probably means Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a US Senator, not a Lt. Governor.
Yi: politically uninformed. :(
Lt. governor
or somethinig accurately describes her office.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 08:26:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:32:16 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
Yi probably means Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a US Senator, not a Lt. Governor.
Yi: politically uninformed. :(
Lt. governor or somethinig accurately describes her office.
She's also a Democrat. Did you mean someone else entirely?
This is Gillibrand:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpapierblog.papierdoll.net%2Ffiles%2Fimg-kirsten-gillibrand_140410526155.jpg&hash=b82acbc34e8164353e6797303399f9d63f20cc68)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 08:30:53 AM
She's also a Democrat. Did you mean someone else entirely?
I meant her. The topic was attractive women in US politics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
I meant her. The topic was attractive women in US politics.
Ok. I thought it was more over Ide's contention that Republican women are ugly monsters, apparently citing Nancy Pelosi to demonstrate that. Which is novel.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2012, 01:56:32 AM
If Mitt loses Michigan he's gonna have problems
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
He can make up for it in the West.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 17, 2012, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2012, 01:56:32 AM
If Mitt loses Michigan he's gonna have problems
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
He can make up for it in the West.
States like Colorado with significant Mormon populations will be a reliable levy against the surge of santorum.
Wyoming will go for the weirdest one...so it seems a toss-up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 08:30:53 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 08:26:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:32:16 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2012, 08:19:23 PM
Yi probably means Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a US Senator, not a Lt. Governor.
Yi: politically uninformed. :(
Lt. governor or somethinig accurately describes her office.
She's also a Democrat. Did you mean someone else entirely?
This is Gillibrand:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpapierblog.papierdoll.net%2Ffiles%2Fimg-kirsten-gillibrand_140410526155.jpg&hash=b82acbc34e8164353e6797303399f9d63f20cc68)
:perv:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:32:37 PM
She got old. Give her a break. She's still not bad looking for her age cohort, and the eyes are the same. :)
:blink:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
Fourthly, despite the corporate shareholders basic if attenuated responsibility for damages done in their name, it's far more administratively convenient to charge either a corporate income tax, or a capital gains tax, or both, as a form of "social insurance" paid by all limited liability entities, to make up for the social harms some of them commit, by financing a strong, rich government, which will ameliorate that harm either through its functioning courts or through its generous social safety net.
This is hard to square with your apparent view on Citizens United (yes grinding that axe again).
What you are implicitly advancing here is a theory of the corporation that is consistent with what the literature calls the "conessionary" theory (though I don't care for the terminology). Basically the idea is that corporations as creatures of state law are merely "concessions" that can be modified or revoked by the will of the Legislature and therefore exist to serve the public welfare. There are two key things to keep in mind about this view: (1) it unquestionably reflects how corporations were understood and viewed at the time of the drafting of the Constitution - when under many state statutes a special act of the Legislature was required to grant each individual corporate charter, and (2) legally speaking, the theory is a truism - that is the corporate form is entirely a creation of state legislatures and nothing more. If all 50 states decided tomorrow to strike their corporation statutes from the book, every corporation in America would dissolve.
Notwithstanding all this, in certain academic circles the concessionary theory is considered quaint and passe. How can this be? The origin point is the Law and Economics movement and the work of Ronald Coase in particular, who theorized the business fim as a "nexus of contracts." That in turn gave rise to an "associationist" view of corporations that sees them as voluntary associations of free citizens who agree to bind themselves together through a complex web of contracts.
The associationist view is all very nice as a way of analyzing corporations from a sociological perspective, but it is also in a sense dodging the issue. The issue is that there is a very real and significant difference between human people and corporate "persons". Human beings are legal Persons axiomatically under a free, democractic constitution - the American Constitution captures this axiomatic position quite well by beginning with the phrase "We the People". Human Personhood is natural, inherent, irrevocable, even tautological. Corporations, on the ohter hand are legal Persons only because some state legislature says they are so. Their Personhood is artificial, conditional and revocable.
Once you accept this distinction then the justification for corporate control and taxation by the state is clear - corporations are creations of public law and therefore their raison d'etre is to increase the general welfare. The state should therefore adjust corporate institutional arrangements as appropriate to achieve that goal.
But if you don't accept that view and conflate corporate and individual Personhood, it becomes far more murky. If a couple of friends and I form a bowling team and compete for prize money, the state can tax us for whatever we take individually but can't impose an additional tax on the Team as a whole. Indeed unincorporated associations of citizens of all kinds are typically exempt from entity-level taxation, regardless of whether they enjoy limitation of liability or not. But if corporations are entitled to all the usual rights of constitutional persons, then how can taxation be imposed on the entity level without violating Equal Protection?
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2012, 10:57:38 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 10:32:37 PM
She got old. Give her a break. She's still not bad looking for her age cohort, and the eyes are the same. :)
:blink:
70 year olds look hideous as a rule. Pelosi's skin may be falling off, but her facial structure is still intact. She's got good genes.
Amid Rivalry, Friendship Blossoms on the Campaign Trail
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-ron-paul-friendly-amid-the-rivalry.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-ron-paul-friendly-amid-the-rivalry.html)
'In a Republican presidential contest known for its angry rivalries, the Romney-Paul relationship stands out for its behind-the-scenes civility. It is a friendship that, by Mr. Paul's telling, Mr. Romney has worked to cultivate. The question is whether it is also one that could pay dividends for Mr. Romney as he faces yet more setbacks in his struggle to capture the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination.'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F02%2F17%2Fus%2F17paul%2F17paul-articleLarge-v2.jpg&hash=0daa49661fbdab5506ef0d77e083c0cdad89e84d)
Romney was a successful business man, so he's like a hero to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul sure looks excited to finally meet his idol in person.
He probably calculated that making friends with the old guy that can't win might distract people from the fact he is running really nasty smear campaigns on the other candidates.
Or that he may need Paul's delegates to win.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 17, 2012, 12:07:57 PM
He probably calculated that making friends with the old guy that can't win might distract people from the fact he is running really nasty smear campaigns on the other candidates.
Which one? I think Paul is angling for VP spot. Give him a good position to spread his gospel of madness.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2012, 12:10:10 PM
Which one? I think Paul is angling for VP spot. Give him a good position to spread his gospel of madness.
Oh Lord no :bleeding:
Maybe for his son. Surely having a 70-something VP's a bit weird. Plus he'd make Sarah Palin look a master of controlled, restrained, focussed communication.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:47:24 PM
:lol: Politics is and should be mostly to do with emotions, personality and a gut connection. I think that's the useful aspect of a campaign - especially the American Presidential one - is that it's grueling enough to reveal something of the candidates' personalities.
Politics is the peach pit of government. It may be necessary to produce the next generation, but is poisonous and should be discarded as soon as feasible.
Does the GOP's racism know no bounds???
QuoteArundel councilman uses ethnic slur during meeting
Broadneck's Ladd refers to 'gooks' while recalling Army service
baltimoresun.com
An Anne Arundel County councilman used an ethnic slur during a council meeting held Thursday night to appoint a replacement for a vacant seat on the body.
Councilman Richard B. "Dick" Ladd, a Broadneck Republican, referred to "gooks" from his seat on the dais when speaking about his time serving in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War.
While questioning a candidate for the vacant seat on the council, Ladd remarked on their similar Army service. When another councilman teased Ladd, 71, about which war he may have served during, Ladd said: "I was in the Vietnam War. It wasn't the Revolutionary War. I was there chasing down the gooks."
The comment elicited gasps throughout the council chambers, where dozens were assembled to watch the candidate interview process.
Ladd, who piloted helicopters on combat missions in Vietnam, briefly attempted to explain his use of the term as the "technical term for North Koreans," but quickly moved on.
After becoming aware that a reporter had sought comment from several council members, Ladd gave an apology, which was met with applause from spectators.
"I need to apologize," said Ladd. "It was a term that I used in my past. If I offended anybody, I take the hit on that."
During a break in the meeting, Ladd explained his comments further, saying, "It's a term of art that is used for opponents. If you want to say it's an ethnic slur, then I'm OK with that. I understand this and that's why I apologized."
Several of his council colleagues declined to comment. Councilman John J. Grasso, a Glen Burnie Republican, dismissed the incident.
"Who cares?" said Grasso. "It's old war talk."
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word as "A non-white or non-American person, specifically Asian" and advises, "usually offensive." Historically, the term was used by American soldiers serving in Asian countries.
In 2000, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was a prisoner of war for five years during the Vietnam War, called his captors "gooks." According to The New York Times, he apologized.
Did he find many North Koreans there?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 04:47:24 PM
:lol: Politics is and should be mostly to do with emotions, personality and a gut connection.
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
Emotional politics like the ones currently guiding our electorate may make for a good circus, but does it make for good government?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2012, 01:10:46 PM
Does the GOP's racism know no bounds???
So a GOP city councilman used a racial epithet while a Democratic Congresswoman referred to her GOP colleagues as "demons" and which story do you pick up on? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2012, 01:37:22 PM
So a GOP city councilman used a racial epithet while a Democratic Congresswoman referred to her GOP colleagues as "demons" and which story do you pick up on? :hmm:
The one he can make the best hypocrtical joke out of?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2012, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2012, 01:10:46 PM
Does the GOP's racism know no bounds???
So a GOP city councilman used a racial epithet while a Democratic Congresswoman referred to her GOP colleagues as "demons" and which story do you pick up on? :hmm:
Demons aren't real.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2012, 01:38:42 PM
The one he can make the best hypocrtical joke out of?
Maybe he was knocking the lack of creativity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 15, 2012, 09:56:43 PM
Fourthly, despite the corporate shareholders basic if attenuated responsibility for damages done in their name, it's far more administratively convenient to charge either a corporate income tax, or a capital gains tax, or both, as a form of "social insurance" paid by all limited liability entities, to make up for the social harms some of them commit, by financing a strong, rich government, which will ameliorate that harm either through its functioning courts or through its generous social safety net.
This is hard to square with your apparent view on Citizens United (yes grinding that axe again).
snip
I still think you're buying far too much into the hype surrounding CU, and not the decision itself, which I hate to say because generally speaking you're way smarter than I am, but in this case it seems crystal clear that you're committing a misreading. Protecting the speech rights of associations does nothing to advance the corporate form toward the same level of "personhood" as a breathing human, it simply protects the speech rights of breathing humans organized thus to collectively shoulder the financial burden of creating artistic works--which, whether you like them or not, must include feature length attack ads. I simply cannot imagine a world where corporations (or other business entities) are prohibited from making political, cultural, or other statements. It probably looks like the Soviet Union, where every movie is long and silent and half are very boring (sample size two, Battleship Potemkin and Solaris). If it's wasteful, then that is a governance issue, and I am sympathetic to the possibility of requiring shareholder approval or creating or modifying a derivative cause of action for blowing money on
Hillary: What a Bitch, or some legal regime that takes into account those issues and is not simply prohibitory.
However, outside of providing a framework for internal checks in the case of corporate speech, it's unbelievably dangerous to permit state power to interfere with expression based on its content, origin, or pretty much anything short of fraud or national security (viz. espionage, not clear and present danger and stuff like that). I simply don't know how you can distinguish, on a legal basis, between "good" expression and "bad" expression (or "not" expression).
But of course the corporate form exists solely to advance the general welfare, and the general welfare is advanced by the marketplace of ideas. But the analysis is wholly different when the question involves its taxation regime, as they are two entirely different issues that merely involve the same actors.
So to answer your question:
QuoteIf a couple of friends and I form a bowling team and compete for prize money, the state can tax us for whatever we take individually but can't impose an additional tax on the Team as a whole. Indeed unincorporated associations of citizens of all kinds are typically exempt from entity-level taxation, regardless of whether they enjoy limitation of liability or not. But if corporations are entitled to all the usual rights of constitutional persons, then how can taxation be imposed on the entity level without violating Equal Protection?
Well, firstly, good luck in the SDNY in your facial attack on the corporate income tax. :P
Secondly, it's not the association itself that's the issue when it comes to tax, it's the availment of the proffered, statutorily created form. EP simply does not apply in terms of unequal taxation to the category of corporations, in the same way that the vote can be withheld from corporations: in the first instance, no individual shareholder is compelled to avail themselves of the corporate form, and may instead organize in a pass-through fashion--they choose to be taxed differently; just as association does not impact the individual shareholder's right to vote.
Speech restraints upon corps (or business entities in general)
do impact the individual shareholder's right to express themselves. It seems pretty distinct to me.
Also, it's not as if I find any constitutional or policy problem in taxing the life out of breathing humans, either. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
I meant her. The topic was attractive women in US politics.
Ok. I thought it was more over Ide's contention that Republican women are ugly monsters, apparently citing Nancy Pelosi to demonstrate that. Which is novel.
The Who didn't die before they got old either. :(
Quote from: racist GOPtardIt's a term of art that is used for opponents
:lol:
Well he's right. I thought the apology was well done. Not many people can do a decent apology.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 11:56:26 AM
Ron Paul sure looks excited to finally meet his idol in person.
Maybe that's not Paul's hand Mitt is shaking. :P
well they do.
Use different ones then.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 02:10:49 PM
I still think you're buying far too much into the hype surrounding CU, and not the decision itself, which I hate to say because generally speaking you're way smarter than I am, but in this case it seems crystal clear that you're committing a misreading. Protecting the speech rights of associations does nothing to advance the corporate form toward the same level of "personhood" as a breathing human, it simply protects the speech rights of breathing humans organized thus to collectively shoulder the financial burden of creating artistic works--which, whether you like them or not, must include feature length attack ads. I simply cannot imagine a world where corporations (or other business entities) are prohibited from making political, cultural, or other statements. It probably looks like the Soviet Union, where every movie is long and silent and half are very boring (sample size two, Battleship Potemkin and Solaris).
OK then - let's look at the decision itself and see whether all it is doing is putting a sensible stumbling block in the way of Hollywood turning into Stalinist cinema and the other parade of horribles.
First, one must consider the background of legal rights coming into the case. Individuals have First Amendment rights, and they do not lose those rights by entering into associations, including associations that are creatures of state law like corporations. This very issue was addressed in Belotti, a 1978 Supreme Court case that applied the correct framework: "The proper question therefore is not whether corporations 'have' First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons. Instead, the question must be whether [challenged legislation] abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect." That is if a regulation - even if directed at a corporation - has the effect of undermining individual expression or "affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas" then it must be subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Simple application of the
Belotti principle would indicagte that CU presents a serious argument about whether the state's interest in applying BCRA's restrictions to a non-profit corporation's display of an artisitic work where the primary (but not sole sole purpose) is for electioneering outweighs the public benefit that can result from such displays in terms of disseminating ideas and provoking public discussion. What there would not be a serious arugment about is whether no limitation could constitutionally be placed on corporate independent expenditures of any kind. Clearly under Belotti such limitations are pemissible where there is a compelling state interest in doing so and the communications are of little value in providing a public forum or promoting individual expression.
But the Citizens United Court didn't just want to give a pass to Hillary:The Movie; they wanted to deep six the entire BCRA. One of the extraordinary features of the decision is that the Court, while ruling for the Plaintiff, disagreed with most of the arguments CU made. CU itself argued that Hillary wasn't covered by the statute, or that if it was - such an application of the statute should be found unconstitutional. All this was consistent with the Court's prior precedents and yet the Court rejected all those arguments. And since existing constitutional doctrine provided no basis for doing that, they had to invent one. And the way they did that was by rewriting Belloti. In the majority opinion, Belloti is characterized as holding the speech rights of corporations (as persons) stands with the same dignity as the speech rights of natural persons. In fact, Belloti has nothing to say at all concerning the ontological status of speech rights of corporations - indeed that was precisely the proposition the Belloti Court viewed as a non sequitur. Belloti protection of "corporate speech" is simply protection of activities that faciliate the First Amendment rights of natural persons, no more.
QuoteIf it's wasteful, then that is a governance issue, and I am sympathetic to the possibility of requiring shareholder approval or creating or modifying a derivative cause of action for blowing money on Hillary: What a Bitch, or some legal regime that takes into account those issues and is not simply prohibitory.
If so, that legal regime will have to be created b/c as it exists now, teh BJ rule protects these kinds of decisions.
Also I would seriously question whether opening floodgates of massive private litigation is really a socially superior solution to this problem.
QuoteSpeech restraints upon corps (or business entities in general) do impact the individual shareholder's right to express themselves.
I think that is a fantasy. Corporations can and do impact personal speech rights - by providing means and forums of communcation, and by communicating ideas and concepts to the public and potential consumers, whether in the form of advertising or in more edifying kinds of information (e.g. newspapers or data compilations). And all these activities have always been subject to protection, not on the basis that a rights-bearing corporate speaker speaks them, but on the basis that the listener or reader hears or reads them. Individual shareholders OTOH don't buy shares in corporations to vindicate expressive rights, they invest to earn dividends and capital gains.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 02:10:49 PM
Speech restraints upon corps (or business entities in general) do impact the individual shareholder's right to express themselves.
Being a shareholder is a voluntary exercise. So fuck 'em.
And since when did "shareholder" become a protected class? LULZ STRICT SCRUTINY FAIL AND I DIDNT EVEN GO TO LAWLZ SCHOOL
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2012, 08:05:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 09:35:41 PM
Personally, I much more interested in the nuts and bolts of government. Can bills move through Congress? Is the bureaucracy running well? Is the government doing a good job in procurement. Are regulations being enforced? Are our roads in good shape? Do our enemies fear us and do our Allies respect us. Can the military kill people adequately? The horse race and drama are mildly amusing, but at the end of the day I want the a government that actually works.
But how you define the answers to those questions will differ based on ideology and priorities. Similarly the policies you decide to implement will change. The key is to successfully link the policies that you want to deliver, the metrics of success that you want to measure to the horserace and to a grander campaign. Without that you end up with the European Commission or the Green Party: well-meaning, occasionally interesting, generally futile.
This is what I mean about the American left annoying me is that they often seem so interested in governing that they actually forget there are voters. I remember during the healthcare debate the number of times I'd read left-wing writers and politicians proposing this wonky way of working an individual mandates vs this form of single payer. There were endless reams of polls showing that actually people quite like the idea if you explain it to them. All of this was being hashed out in public and in the private committees of which we got innumerable articles.
All the while Republicans went out there and campaigned against it. They had a simple clear message and they explained it to the voters. Because of that they were far more successful at defining popular impressions of the reform. And I remember wondering in all of this where were the left? I saw a pathetic amount of explaining of the options, or of campaigning for healthcare. This should have been a moral crusade and it wasn't because too many liberals, in my view, are too into governing. They look and act like New Dealers who don't realise they've lost their majority. Weirdly we're going through almost exactly the same thing but in reverse on healthcare right now with the cack-handed coalition reforms.
I think that part of the reason Obama's started to succeed a little bit more (as well, of course, as the economy) is that they're linking politics to government again which you have to do.
So it's absurd to disdain or ignore the stuff about how someone or a certain issue connects with voters, or what sort of campaign they're trying to create because that will tell you a huge amount about their governing style (as I say I've not been surprised by anything Obama's done so far because I think it's been very continuous from the campaign, from what I've read Clinton was the same). Much as I love Monti for his technocratic ideas I think his real success has been communication which give them a greater chance of success and a wider measure of public support.
I understand its important, it just doesn't interest me as much. I also think it's over reported in the news. Shit, people start running for President before the previous one was sworn in to office.
A political break:
Cats as fonts
http://www.buzzfeed.com/animals/cats-as-fonts
Now you can go back to slinging shit, you babies.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
I meant her. The topic was attractive women in US politics.
Ok. I thought it was more over Ide's contention that Republican women are ugly monsters, apparently citing Nancy Pelosi to demonstrate that. Which is novel.
The Who didn't die before they got old either. :(
One did...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2012, 05:00:40 PM
OK then - let's look at the decision itself and see whether all it is doing is putting a sensible stumbling block in the way of Hollywood turning into Stalinist cinema and the other parade of horribles.
:D
QuoteFirst, one must consider the background of legal rights coming into the case. Individuals have First Amendment rights, and they do not lose those rights by entering into associations, including associations that are creatures of state law like corporations. This very issue was addressed in Belotti, a 1978 Supreme Court case that applied the correct framework: "The proper question therefore is not whether corporations 'have' First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons. Instead, the question must be whether [challenged legislation] abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect." That is if a regulation - even if directed at a corporation - has the effect of undermining individual expression or "affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas" then it must be subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Simple application of the Belotti principle would indicagte that CU presents a serious argument about whether the state's interest in applying BCRA's restrictions to a non-profit corporation's display of an artisitic work where the primary (but not sole sole purpose) is for electioneering outweighs the public benefit that can result from such displays in terms of disseminating ideas and provoking public discussion. What there would not be a serious arugment about is whether no limitation could constitutionally be placed on corporate independent expenditures of any kind. Clearly under Belotti such limitations are pemissible where there is a compelling state interest in doing so and the communications are of little value in providing a public forum or promoting individual expression.
Then what you want is an effective prior restraint? To force people to get declaratory relief to show a movie? Because that's what the CU Court feared, and is basically what CU was attempting--and it's both administratively unwelcome and constitutionally improper to force speakers, under threat of enforcement action and even criminal sanctions, to seek governmental approval prior to dissemination.
Oh: "Furthermore, a decision allowing the desired expenditures would be an empty gesture unless it afforded appellants sufficient opportunity prior to the election date to communicate their views effectively."
Fwiw, that's from Belloti. They're discussing the possibility of mootness, but it highlights the underlying problem with the BCRA as well.
From CU: "Here, Citizens United decided to litigate its case to the end. Today, Citizens United finally learns, two years after the fact, whether it could have spoken during the 2008 Presidential primary—long after the opportunity to persuade primary voters has passed."
Also, a lot of CU's alternative arguments were pants-on-head retarded. "It's not express advocacy," "it's being communicated through a direct-to-video service, so the actual audience is only like 5 per communication." :rolleyes: They should have been rejected.
QuoteBut the Citizens United Court didn't just want to give a pass to Hillary:The Movie; they wanted to deep six the entire BCRA. One of the extraordinary features of the decision is that the Court, while ruling for the Plaintiff, disagreed with most of the arguments CU made. CU itself argued that Hillary wasn't covered by the statute, or that if it was - such an application of the statute should be found unconstitutional. All this was consistent with the Court's prior precedents and yet the Court rejected all those arguments.
OK, I agree. So what should they have done?
Are you saying that they should not have reached the question of facial invalidity? If so, why so? That claim (or that approach to the First Amendment claim) was preserved. And especially given the onerous nature of the restrictions, how could they have avoided "deep six[ing] the entire BCRA" and providing CU relief, without perpetuating a system of effective prior restraint? Kennedy talks about this--the Court should not avoid a broader ruling when it's necessary. (Heck, for my money courts should not make special effort to avoid broader rulings--I dislike that doctrine as it lends a far too conservative bent to the bench.)
Are you saying that instead they should have considered only the dumb arguments recited above, perhaps found for them on their dumb merits?
Or should they have created a de minimis exception to 441b (ignoring the plain text of the back-up provision in the statute), as suggested by the government?
Or decided for the FEC altogether?
QuoteAnd since existing constitutional doctrine provided no basis for doing that, they had to invent one. And the way they did that was by rewriting Belloti. In the majority opinion, Belloti is characterized as holding the speech rights of corporations (as persons) stands with the same dignity as the speech rights of natural persons. In fact, Belloti has nothing to say at all concerning the ontological status of speech rights of corporations - indeed that was precisely the proposition the Belloti Court viewed as a non sequitur. Belloti protection of "corporate speech" is simply protection of activities that faciliate the First Amendment rights of natural persons, no more.
Belloti: "If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation, rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual."
Functionally, what is the difference? I'm not sure I see the rewriting that you are; in fact, I see many echoes of Belloti in Kennedy's opinion.
QuoteIf it's wasteful, then that is a governance issue, and I am sympathetic to the possibility of requiring shareholder approval or creating or modifying a derivative cause of action for blowing money on Hillary: What a Bitch, or some legal regime that takes into account those issues and is not simply prohibitory.
QuoteIf so, that legal regime will have to be created b/c as it exists now, teh BJ rule protects these kinds of decisions.
Heh. That's true, and that's generally proper.
QuoteAlso I would seriously question whether opening floodgates of massive private litigation is really a socially superior solution to this problem.
You're right, that one was a silly idea. Administratively, requiring shareholder approval might be so onerous as to be effectively a serious restraint as well (but maybe not, a yearly "Can we contribute to PACs" vote doesn't seem insane). I'd have to give a great deal of thought to an alternative means of regulation that I feel would not be either dangerous or deny an intrinsic right.
QuoteSpeech restraints upon corps (or business entities in general) do impact the individual shareholder's right to express themselves.
I think that is a fantasy. Corporations can and do impact personal speech rights - by providing means and forums of communcation, and by communicating ideas and concepts to the public and potential consumers, whether in the form of advertising or in more edifying kinds of information (e.g. newspapers or data compilations). And all these activities have always been subject to protection, not on the basis that a rights-bearing corporate speaker speaks them, but on the basis that the listener or reader hears or reads them. Individual shareholders OTOH don't buy shares in corporations to vindicate expressive rights, they invest to earn dividends and capital gains.
[/quote][/quote]
I think that's a limiting perspective. Government impacts profit-making enterprise considerably; of course shareholders don't buy shares to vindicate expressive rights, but in order to earn dividends and capital gains it may prove effective to engage their expressive rights. And sure, nationalization would solve all this.
But OK, assume I agree--what about unions?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2012, 05:24:39 PM
And since when did "shareholder" become a protected class? LULZ STRICT SCRUTINY FAIL AND I DIDNT EVEN GO TO LAWLZ SCHOOL
LOLOLOL clearly. :P
So, tell me, when did you first start to hate unions, and therefore America?
US unions in 2012 by and large blow serious donkey cock.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 18, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
US unions in 2012 by and large blow serious donkey cock.
I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean, public service unions are troublesome, and in some cases the past successes of the unions have put both workers and employers in a tough spot due to changing conditions. On the other hand, the employees have to find some way to protect themselves from their employers, who are not their friends. Banding together in unions and then using that power to lobby the state seems like the best option.
Maybe Canadian unions are less corrupt.
Not in my experience.
unions ultimately serve a purpose. there are the rotten eggs, of course, but it's not so simple as a forbes article
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
unions ultimately serve a purpose.
So do the Mafia and al Qaeda. The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 03:02:17 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
unions ultimately serve a purpose.
So do the Mafia and al Qaeda. The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.
Curious. What if something isn't for the "greater public good"?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 03:02:17 PMSo do the Mafia and al Qaeda. The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.
:D
that's what i meant. maybe they're not rewarding in every sector, but obviously the answer is not to outright ban them/remove them (not saying anyone is saying this). they obviously do not seem perfect everywhere, but i'd think reform should be the answer if anything
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 03:06:45 PM
:D
that's what i meant. maybe they're not rewarding in every sector, but obviously the answer is not to outright ban them/remove them (not saying anyone is saying this). they obviously do not seem perfect everywhere, but i'd think reform should be the answer if anything
I don't see why outright banning them is obviously not the answer.
Unions serve two purposes: they extract rents and they adjudicate work place issues. The first one is just plain wrong from a public good perspective. The second one is fine in theory: supervisor fires a worker because he wants to bang the worker's squeeze, that's in nobody's interest except the supervisor. Bringing it to the attention of managment is a good thing. But that sort of thing describes a tiny fraction of the type of adjudication/advocay unions do in America. Mostly they fight to keep dead wood on the payroll.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 18, 2012, 02:21:40 PM
Maybe Canadian unions are less corrupt.
Link, plz.
I'd like to see where all this "ZOMG UNIUNZ IS KORRUPT" stuff comes from. Or at least how they're more corrupt than, say, the United Way, which is forced down the throat of employees by their masters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2012, 03:57:20 PM
I'd like to see where all this "ZOMG UNIUNZ IS KORRUPT" stuff comes from. Or at least how they're more corrupt than, say, the United Way, which is forced down the throat of employees by their masters.
You're not seriously thinking I'll jump to the defense of the United Way, are you? :lol:
I worked in a job for almost 9 years which was AFL-CIO. I saw union high-rankers do things clearly not in the interest of the union on a very, very regular basis.
EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, UW workplace campaigns are *an awful lot* like how unions tend to run operations in the US.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 18, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2012, 03:57:20 PM
I'd like to see where all this "ZOMG UNIUNZ IS KORRUPT" stuff comes from. Or at least how they're more corrupt than, say, the United Way, which is forced down the throat of employees by their masters.
You're not seriously thinking I'll jump to the defense of the United Way, are you? :lol:
I worked in a job for almost 9 years which was AFL-CIO. I saw union high-rankers do things clearly not in the interest of the union on a very, very regular basis.
Gimme evidence. Quite frankly, I'd like to know more about all this UNIONS IS CORRUPT stuff coming from Languishtards.
And no, you can't use Jimmy Hoffa as an example. That's too schticky, sorta like how Neil defends Nixon, even though Nixon-worship hasn't been in style since
Family Ties was cancelled.
The United Steelworkers are pretty good in my experience, and they're active in both the US and Canada. They have some pretty explicit anti-corruption practices written into their governance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 03:32:53 PM
Unions serve two purposes: they extract rents and they adjudicate work place issues. The first one is just plain wrong from a public good perspective. The second one is fine in theory: supervisor fires a worker because he wants to bang the worker's squeeze, that's in nobody's interest except the supervisor. Bringing it to the attention of managment is a good thing. But that sort of thing describes a tiny fraction of the type of adjudication/advocay unions do in America. Mostly they fight to keep dead wood on the payroll.
You're actually missing the primary two reason for unions in your analysis:
1) Collective bargaining; workers have more influence on their working conditions when they act collectively.
2) Pooling of resources. Again, workers tend to be better off when they pool their resources, whether it's funding for strike pay if necessary (thus improving their bargaining position) or providing pensions and health care.
Quote from: Jacob on February 18, 2012, 04:57:18 PM
You're actually missing the primary two reason for unions in your analysis:
1) Collective bargaining; workers have more influence on their working conditions when they act collectively.
2) Pooling of resources. Again, workers tend to be better off when they pool their resources, whether it's funding for strike pay if necessary (thus improving their bargaining position) or providing pensions and health care.
Extracting rents means gaining above market compensation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 18, 2012, 04:57:18 PM
You're actually missing the primary two reason for unions in your analysis:
1) Collective bargaining; workers have more influence on their working conditions when they act collectively.
2) Pooling of resources. Again, workers tend to be better off when they pool their resources, whether it's funding for strike pay if necessary (thus improving their bargaining position) or providing pensions and health care.
Extracting rents means gaining above market compensation.
So HMOs are extracting rents? And employer provided benefit plans - be they insurance or pensions - are extracting rents as well because the employer negotiates the price of the product purchased on behalf of all its employees? If so, I don't think extracting rents is a bad thing.
As for collective bargaining, I reject your proposed axiom that market compensation is objectively calculated on an individual basis.
Quote from: Jacob on February 18, 2012, 05:04:49 PM
So HMOs are extracting rents? And employer provided benefit plans - be they insurance or pensions - are extracting rents as well because the employer negotiates the price of the product purchased on behalf of all its employees? If so, I don't think extracting rents is a bad thing.
No, sorry I didn't make it clear. Cases of unions taking advantage of scale economies to lower costs of group benefits is not rent extraction.
QuoteAs for collective bargaining, I reject your proposed axiom that market compensation is objectively calculated on an individual basis.
Market compensation is (apart from exceptions such as 100% commission or 100% peicerate compensation) not objectively calculated because of the information costs. That doesn't refute the argument that unions seek above-market compensation, and are therefore extracting rents.
Doesn't everyone seek above-market compensation?
Quote from: sbr on February 18, 2012, 07:20:37 PM
Doesn't everyone seek above-market compensation?
Yes, but it's okay when it's for you. When it's someone else it's bad.
Quote from: sbr on February 18, 2012, 07:20:37 PM
Doesn't everyone seek above-market compensation?
Sure. Almost everyone wants more, that's the capitalist way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 18, 2012, 07:20:37 PM
Doesn't everyone seek above-market compensation?
Sure. Almost everyone wants more, that's the capitalist way.
So everyone who negotiates their own salary is extracting rents.
Quote from: sbr on February 18, 2012, 07:36:16 PM
So everyone who negotiates their own salary is extracting rents.
No.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 07:38:12 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 18, 2012, 07:36:16 PM
So everyone who negotiates their own salary is extracting rents.
No.
So everyone who negotiates their own salary, and seeks better than marker compensation, is extracting rents.
Everyone who engages in "price-fixing" with "competitors" is exacting a rent, by "manipulating the marketplace" to their advantage.
Unfortunately, that assumes that employees are atomized "firms" that "individually negotiate their compensation," the opposition to which is the entire point of a fucking union in the first place, and which is largely a fiction anyway, especially the "negotiate" part.
Union bargaining is nothing more than seeking an exclusive contract with a client to supply something of value--in this case, labor.
Quote from: sbr on February 18, 2012, 08:27:16 PM
So everyone who negotiates their own salary, and seeks better than marker compensation, is extracting rents.
No. Everyone who seeks rents is seeking rents. Everyone who extracts rents extracts rents. Not everyone who seeks rents succeeds.
You beef is that they are successful?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 03:02:17 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 18, 2012, 02:57:05 PM
unions ultimately serve a purpose.
So do the Mafia and al Qaeda. The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.
The greater public good is a balance, and bringing back the robber barons isn't it either.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:33:41 PM
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
Emotional politics like the ones currently guiding our electorate may make for a good circus, but does it make for good government?
I'm about to go out so I'll come back to this later.
But it reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's recent argument that the problem with American governance (and it's a specifically American problem) is that you developed democracy before bureaucracy. I'm far from sold but it's interesting and I think there's an element of truth to it:
QuoteConversely, I would argue that the quality of governance in the US tends to be low precisely because of a continuing tradition of Jacksonian populism. Americans with their democratic roots generally do not trust elite bureaucrats to the extent that the French, Germans, British, or Japanese have in years past. This distrust leads to micromanagement by Congress through proliferating rules and complex, self-contradictory legislative mandates which make poor quality governance a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US is thus caught in a low-level equilibrium trap, in which a hobbled bureaucracy validates everyone's view that the government can't do anything competently. The origins of this, as Martin Shefter pointed out many years ago, is due to the fact that democracy preceded bureaucratic consolidation in contrast to European democracies that arose out of aristocratic regimes.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/what-is-governance/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2012, 03:32:53 PMI don't see why outright banning them is obviously not the answer.
languish is so fickle. when i add disclaimers, people say
why, when i don't, people try and argue that i'm misrepresenting their views :(
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:33:41 PM
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
What's this "we" shit. I voted for Al Gore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 12:01:56 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:33:41 PM
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
What's this "we" shit. I voted for Al Gore.
Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 19, 2012, 04:26:21 AM
But it reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's recent argument that the problem with American governance (and it's a specifically American problem) is that you developed democracy before bureaucracy. I'm far from sold but it's interesting and I think there's an element of truth to it:
QuoteConversely, I would argue that the quality of governance in the US tends to be low precisely because of a continuing tradition of Jacksonian populism. Americans with their democratic roots generally do not trust elite bureaucrats to the extent that the French, Germans, British, or Japanese have in years past. This distrust leads to micromanagement by Congress through proliferating rules and complex, self-contradictory legislative mandates which make poor quality governance a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US is thus caught in a low-level equilibrium trap, in which a hobbled bureaucracy validates everyone's view that the government can't do anything competently. The origins of this, as Martin Shefter pointed out many years ago, is due to the fact that democracy preceded bureaucratic consolidation in contrast to European democracies that arose out of aristocratic regimes.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/what-is-governance/
That's really interesting, Sheilbh, thank you for posting it. I'll read the full article.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2012, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 12:01:56 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:33:41 PM
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
What's this "we" shit. I voted for Al Gore.
Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.
Bullshit. Al Gore has always been the ultimate policy wonk, doing the job himself and driving his staff with the same sense of purpose with which he holds himself.
He would've been the perfect policy president.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2012, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 12:01:56 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:33:41 PM
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
What's this "we" shit. I voted for Al Gore.
Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.
Bullshit. Al Gore has always been the ultimate policy wonk, doing the job himself and driving his staff with the same sense of purpose with which he holds himself.
He would've been the perfect policy president.
Probably, although his policies would have had a rough time in Congress.
None of that changes the fact that you voted for him for tribal reasons.
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Uniter, not a divider.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2012, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2012, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 12:01:56 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 17, 2012, 01:33:41 PM
That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.
What's this "we" shit. I voted for Al Gore.
Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.
Bullshit. Al Gore has always been the ultimate policy wonk, doing the job himself and driving his staff with the same sense of purpose with which he holds himself.
He would've been the perfect policy president.
Probably, although his policies would have had a rough time in Congress.
None of that changes the fact that you voted for him for tribal reasons.
GOP's fault they nominated the wrong guy.
He's making it an easier slam dunk for Obama than if Palin was running.
QuoteSantorum says Obama agenda not 'based on Bible'
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama's Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a "different theology."
A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using "political science" in the debate about climate change.
Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.
When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, "If the president says he's a Christian, he's a Christian."
But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama's values run against those of Christianity.
"He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I'm not going to," Santorum told reporters.
A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage.
"This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity - a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class," said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.
The campaign's response signaled a new respect for Santorum. Until this week, the Obama campaign appeared exclusively focused on Mitt Romney. Republicans are waging a state-by-state contest to pick a candidate to challenge Obama in November's election.
At a campaign appearance in Florida last month, Santorum declined to correct a voter who called Obama, a Christian, an "avowed Muslim."
Santorum told CNN after that incident, "I don't feel it's my obligation every time someone says something I don't agree with to contradict them, and the president's a big boy, he can defend himself."
QUESTIONS ROMNEY RECORD ON OLYMPICS
On Saturday, Santorum also took aim at Romney, his main Republican rival, on one of the central accomplishments of his resume, saying the former Massachusetts governor's rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics required millions of dollars in handouts from the federal government.
The attack was a response to the Romney camp trying to portray Santorum as a proponent of big government because of his use of earmarks while he served in the U.S. Senate.
"He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Olympic Games - in an earmark," Santorum said.
"One of his strongest supporters, John McCain called it potentially the worst boondoggle in earmark history. And now Governor Romney is suggesting, 'Oh, Rick Santorum earmarked,' as he requested almost half a billion dollars of earmarks as governor of Massachusetts to his federal congressmen and senators. Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?" Santorum said.
Romney often talks of how he turned around the struggling Olympics organization and is appearing in Utah on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the Olympics.
In a statement, the Romney campaign said Santorum was in a weak position to challenge its candidate on big spending.
"Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. There is a pretty wide gulf between seeking money for post-9/11 security at the Olympics and seeking earmarks for polar bear exhibits at the Pittsburgh Zoo. Mitt Romney wants to ban earmarks, Senator Santorum wants more 'Bridges to Nowhere,'" said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 05:43:15 PM
GOP's fault they nominated the wrong guy.
You probably voted for Clinton over Dole.
I liked Romney's gay campaigner in Arizona. Underwear shot okay. Threatening to deport an ex, a-ok
Michigan race between Romney and Santorum appears to be tightening through Romney's so-far positive ads.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/ppp-santorum-romney-in-michigan-114975.html
I like how Protestants are backing the Catholic while Catholics are backing the cultist. :D
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
I am so sick of listening to their crazy fundamentalist bullshit. Christians are under attack? Really? You are seriously going to go with that, in 2012, in the United States of America?
Done. Done. And fucking done.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
I am so sick of listening to their crazy fundamentalist bullshit. Christians are under attack? Really? You are seriously going to go with that, in 2012, in the United States of America?
Well, yeah, they've already lost the battle, they just don't know it yet.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
I am so sick of listening to their crazy fundamentalist bullshit. Christians are under attack? Really? You are seriously going to go with that, in 2012, in the United States of America?
Done. Done. And fucking done.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cDGVVsbBH3o%2FTocGIZPdGqI%2FAAAAAAAAJfI%2FSWTJ2KgKuqk%2Fs1600%2Fwelcometothepartypal.jpg&hash=c4da3c434cb9ca453fe3d4c1b58aba02efcb47f3)
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
I am so sick of listening to their crazy fundamentalist bullshit. Christians are under attack? Really? You are seriously going to go with that, in 2012, in the United States of America?
Done. Done. And fucking done.
Did it make more sense to you back in 1994?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 10:48:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
I am so sick of listening to their crazy fundamentalist bullshit. Christians are under attack? Really? You are seriously going to go with that, in 2012, in the United States of America?
Done. Done. And fucking done.
Did it make more sense to you back in 1994?
Damnit, Raz, when a man disavows a relationship with the Republican Party, you should just congratulate him rather than quibble.*
Congratulations, Berkut!
*Later you can ask Berkut what it will take to get him to avow a relationship with the Democratic Party.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2012, 09:54:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
I am so sick of listening to their crazy fundamentalist bullshit. Christians are under attack? Really? You are seriously going to go with that, in 2012, in the United States of America?
Done. Done. And fucking done.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cDGVVsbBH3o%2FTocGIZPdGqI%2FAAAAAAAAJfI%2FSWTJ2KgKuqk%2Fs1600%2Fwelcometothepartypal.jpg&hash=c4da3c434cb9ca453fe3d4c1b58aba02efcb47f3)
I don't get it.
Welcome to the party, pal.
Quote from: ulmont on February 20, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
Damnit, Raz, when a man disavows a relationship with the Republican Party, you should just congratulate him rather than quibble.*
Congratulations, Berkut!
I figured that shit out by 1992, but some kids take longer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on February 20, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
Damnit, Raz, when a man disavows a relationship with the Republican Party, you should just congratulate him rather than quibble.*
Congratulations, Berkut!
I figured that shit out by 1992, but some kids take longer.
You are so chock full of shit...but that is why we love you so.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
I figured that shit out by 1992, but some kids take longer.
Seems to me nowadays you're rich enough to be a Republican.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 05:46:58 PM
He's making it an easier slam dunk for Obama than if Palin was running.
So 8 years after Bush vs. Kerry, it's still about fags not being allowed to marry? If only Republicans had but one neck.
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 05:46:58 PM
He's making it an easier slam dunk for Obama than if Palin was running.
So 8 years after Bush vs. Kerry, it's still about fags not being allowed to marry? If only Republicans had but one neck.
Pfft, that was so 2004. Santorum has diversified. Now it is also about women not using birth control, no more prenatal screens that might give information that could prompt someone to choose to have an abortion, and no more man on dog action (or equivalent acts, such as sex for purposes other than procreation).
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2012, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2012, 05:46:58 PM
He's making it an easier slam dunk for Obama than if Palin was running.
So 8 years after Bush vs. Kerry, it's still about fags not being allowed to marry? If only Republicans had but one neck.
Pfft, that was so 2004. Santorum has diversified. Now it is also about women not using birth control, no more prenatal screens that might give information that could prompt someone to choose to have an abortion, and no more man on dog action (or equivalent acts, such as sex for purposes other than procreation).
I think what is convincing me to just plain give up on the Republicans is not so much that they seem to care about all this bullshit, but that they STILL seem to care, even after it is clear that caring about stupid shit like this is a big part of why there is a pretty boy Dem in the White House.
And they won't let it go. I used to think that it was a mostly harmless quirk, something to be ignored while focusing on the "meat" of the issues. But now I am realizing that for many in the Republican Party, bullshit like this IS the meat, and the other stuff is the distractions to be ignored or only examined once the candidates bona fides as a fundy religious fruit cake are well and truly established.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 12:44:51 PM
I think what is convincing me to just plain give up on the Republicans is not so much that they seem to care about all this bullshit, but that they STILL seem to care, even after it is clear that caring about stupid shit like this is a big part of why there is a pretty boy Dem in the White House.
And they won't let it go. I used to think that it was a mostly harmless quirk, something to be ignored while focusing on the "meat" of the issues. But now I am realizing that for many in the Republican Party, bullshit like this IS the meat, and the other stuff is the distractions to be ignored or only examined once the candidates bona fides as a fundy religious fruit cake are well and truly established.
The other day I read something about Santorum noting that the belief birth control is immoral is only held by something like 15-20% of Americans. Which struck me as a crazy high number, but if it is true, you have to think they will almost all be republicans, so they are 30-40% of the party. Then you factor in primaries and especially caucuses having low turnouts that draw the more ideological members, and we have explained the Santorum phenomena.
I think that Berkut just let slip that he's physically attracted to Obama.
'Santorum continued to sharpen his tone against the White House, making a World War II analogy that appeared to compare Obama to Hitler.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/20/santorum-steps-up-attacks-on-obama/
QuoteA day after saying President Barack Obama's agenda is about a "phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible," Rick Santorum continued to sharpen his tone against the White House as he spoke to some 3,000 supporters at a megachurch here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-RW887_0220sa_D_20120220114533.jpg&hash=049ec55b8576306e654699940f102d7dc295633d)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on February 20, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
Damnit, Raz, when a man disavows a relationship with the Republican Party, you should just congratulate him rather than quibble.*
Congratulations, Berkut!
I figured that shit out by 1992, but some kids take longer.
Hating Poppa Bush would be like hating Mom and apple pie.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
Yeah.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 20, 2012, 01:33:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
Yeah.
I wonder what he'll do if Santorum wins a general election?
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 01:46:07 PM
I wonder what he'll do if Santorum wins a general election?
Who cares what *he'll* do? My eyes will be bugging out of my skull.
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on February 20, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
Damnit, Raz, when a man disavows a relationship with the Republican Party, you should just congratulate him rather than quibble.*
Congratulations, Berkut!
I figured that shit out by 1992, but some kids take longer.
Hating Poppa Bush would be like hating Mom and apple pie.
Poppy rolled over on the Chinese at Tiananmen Square like, well, a Chinese tank at Tiananmen Square.
Oh, and he backed the wrong horse in Moscow, when it was obvious Boris was the new hottness.
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 01:46:07 PM
I wonder what he'll do if Santorum wins a general election?
Hopefully annex Canada so you have to share in our misfortune.
Oh, I meant Santorum and not Berkut, obviously. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2012, 01:58:42 PM
Poppy rolled over on the Chinese at Tiananmen Square like, well, a Chinese tank at Tiananmen Square.
Nobody cares about Chinese people.
QuoteOh, and he backed the wrong horse in Moscow, when it was obvious Boris was the new hottness.
Did that matter? Whoever the US supports to govern Russia was irrelevant, is irrelevant and always will be irrelevant. Poppy Bush could have backed Dorsey in Russia, and they still would have ended up with a Putin.
The United Santorum States can't annex Canada. Jesusism as a government is forbidden here.
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 04:08:43 PM
The United Santorum States can't annex Canada. Jesusism as a government is forbidden here.
Which is really strange since the american paper says jesusism as a government is banned but in canada jesusism is part of government and the head of state is a jeususist and justifies her continued role as head of state on jesusist grounds.
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2012, 04:34:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 04:08:43 PM
The United Santorum States can't annex Canada. Jesusism as a government is forbidden here.
Which is really strange since the american paper says jesusism as a government is banned but in canada jesusism is part of government and the head of state is a jeususist and justifies her continued role as head of state on jesusist grounds.
Wrong. She's a monarch, not a god.
The Ohio atty general mike dewine(a decent guy) switched from underpants to god boy. A minor kerfuffle has ensued.
What sort of kerfuffle? Any salacious details?
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2012, 07:54:00 PM
What sort of kerfuffle? Any salacious details?
Some minor whining. Nothing major.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 20, 2012, 06:58:42 PM
The Ohio atty general mike dewine(a decent guy) switched from underpants to god boy. A minor kerfuffle has ensued.
Did anyone threaten to deport his boyfriend?
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
Welcome friend! :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 20, 2012, 10:02:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
Welcome friend! :hug:
He is voting for LaRouche.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 20, 2012, 10:05:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 20, 2012, 10:02:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
Welcome friend! :hug:
He is voting for LaRouche.
Nah, ... http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/)
Santorum now leading Romney by double-digits nationally.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Why aren't the Republicans running a credible candidate?
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 11:22:22 PM
Why aren't the Republicans running a credible candidate?
Cause it's no longer a credible party.
Raz, I can read your sig a 100 times a still gets a laugh.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 11:23:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 11:22:22 PM
Why aren't the Republicans running a credible candidate?
Cause it's no longer a credible party.
Ding ding ding!
Quote from: fahdiz on February 20, 2012, 11:40:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 11:23:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 20, 2012, 11:22:22 PM
Why aren't the Republicans running a credible candidate?
Cause it's no longer a credible party.
Ding ding ding!
I'm not sure how one can say there are any credible parties if one is going to say that.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 20, 2012, 10:51:51 PM
Santorum now leading Romney by double-digits nationally.
That's so awesome, just
giving the election to Obama this way. I love it.
Quote from: citizen k on February 20, 2012, 10:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 20, 2012, 10:05:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 20, 2012, 10:02:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
At this time I am going to simply disavow any actual relationship with the Republican Fucking Party.
Welcome friend! :hug:
He is voting for LaRouche.
Nah, ... http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/)
Quote$2,139.98 raised from 44 donors
*snort*
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2012, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 20, 2012, 10:51:51 PM
Santorum now leading Romney by double-digits nationally.
That's so awesome, just giving the election to Obama this way. I love it.
It's incredible to me that anyone would vote to Santorum* but I guess that just shows how little I know about the American electorate.
But he doesn't seem to be doing any worse that Romney in head-to-head polls against Obama. Unlike Newt who is 10-15 points behind either of them.
*I mean he blames liberals for kiddy-fiddling priests. I just don't get what intellectual somersaults you have to do to get to that position.
Intellectual somersaults and the GOP? Remember, these are the people who nominated Sarah Palin for Veep.
Honestly, what the GOP needs is their Bill Clinton; someone who changes the ideological paradigm.
LOL Did you GOPers catch these statements?
Quote"It's not about you. It's not about you," Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. "It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your job. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."
"- bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do," Santorum continued to say about Obama. "The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he's saying no I've got a different, I've got a different -- you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don't want to call it a theology, I'm fine, you can
have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that's not a new low. That's a reflection of exactly what ... it is a new low."
That is one nutty nigger right there, man.
But wait, there's more!
QuoteNewt Gingrich said Monday a Republican win in November is "a duty of national security," taking his attack on President Barack Obama a step further on the day the country celebrates Presidents Day.
"Defeating Barack Obama becomes, in fact, a duty of national security," Gingrich told a crowd of about 4,000 people on the campus of Oral Roberts University. "Because the fact is, he is incapable of defending the United States."
Gingrich, who frequently refers to Obama as the "the most dangerous president in modern American history," again said the country is at risk "someday in your lifetime of losing an American city" from a terrorist attack.
Lulz.
:huh: Loons
I know; ain't it hilarious?
What the GOP needs is to fracture into different parties--one of insane Christians and one of everyone else, like the Democrats and Dixiecrats did in 1948. Let the evangelical Christians have their own little party, let it crash and burn, and then let them come limping back to a major party with religion no longer being an issue (like with segregation and the Dixiecrats).
Bill Maher summed it all up this week on Real Time, at the 1:41 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvXLeTOu5r0
Quote from: fahdiz on February 19, 2012, 02:04:56 PM
That's really interesting, Sheilbh, thank you for posting it. I'll read the full article.
There was a couple of other points that you made that I'm not sure of.
I don't think governance is inevitably consensus driven - though it should be data driven - because I think governance is about delivering different aims for different political visions. An example of local politics would be what public transport is for. Is it a social service or a public utility? Your perspective on that will change all the sorts of policies that you'd actually want implemented. Also I think consensus is a cultural value within a political system. I don't think we really have it in the Anglo-Saxon world. I'm not sure why, but I think our systems are adversarial, confrontational and about competition. There is far less emphasis or value on, I think, Northern European style consensus government. You can think that's unfortunate, but I don't think it's a flaw of our system I think it's a defining feature of our system. I also think consensus is a bit suspicious. I think it leads to far more collusion and corruption among elites, but also that it ostracises certain 'unacceptable' views. I think consensus culture is a part of why much of Northern Europe has quite successful far-right populist parties. Because consensus by its nature constrains debate, it defines what's allowed.
My other thought is that I wonder if governance and administration's like an implicit check and balance. Your system makes passing legislation very difficult. But you embed political appointees throughout the bureaucracy making administrative political changes rather easy. Over here we've the opposite. It's easy for the government to pass legislation, but they have to largely act through a professional independent civil service that every minister blames for stymieing reform.
Also on the emotion thing I think voters get it right on a base, gut instinct level. I can't think of the last presidential candidate who lost their election on an issue of policy rather than personality - but I also think that regardless of who I'd have voted for the public probably got it right in almost all cases. I think our gut instinct, our ability to connect with a candidate isn't somehow subordinate to a reasoned decision it's just one that happens very quickly. It's the same sort of thing when you meet someone and you form an opinion of them pretty quickly. They can change your mind but if your initial response is bad it's difficult to get over that because it's normally right.
Quote*I mean he blames liberals for kiddy-fiddling priests. I just don't get what intellectual somersaults you have to do to get to that position.
It's quite common with conservatives in the Church. Basically all the child abuse is to do with intellectual and moral relativism and the collapse of absolute values brought in after Vatican II. I guess no-one told the Christian Brothers.
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2012, 06:25:09 AM
What the GOP needs is to fracture into different parties--one of insane Christians and one of everyone else, like the Democrats and Dixiecrats did in 1948. Let the evangelical Christians have their own little party, let it crash and burn, and then let them come limping back to a major party with religion no longer being an issue (like with segregation and the Dixiecrats).
The difference is I don't see religion not being an issue any time soon. It's not like segregation because the government's not going to ban it and its popularity isn't just going to fade away.
What the gay Brit said. Reilgious fundies are called fundies for a reason. It's fundamental to their thought process.
I'm sure people said that about Southern segregationists in the 1960s. :hmm:
I'm not saying it's likely for Christian evangelicals to stop being Christian, but it might be possible to get them to actually understand separation of church and state at some point.
Quote from: Gups on February 21, 2012, 05:49:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2012, 03:32:58 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 20, 2012, 10:51:51 PM
Santorum now leading Romney by double-digits nationally.
That's so awesome, just giving the election to Obama this way. I love it.
It's incredible to me that anyone would vote to Santorum* but I guess that just shows how little I know about the American electorate.
But he doesn't seem to be doing any worse that Romney in head-to-head polls against Obama. Unlike Newt who is 10-15 points behind either of them.
*I mean he blames liberals for kiddy-fiddling priests. I just don't get what intellectual somersaults you have to do to get to that position.
Santorum is still relatively unknown and untarred (by the Romney/Obama machines). Just like previous frontrunners, his "competitiveness" (compared to Romney) in polling against Obama will plummet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2012, 06:18:13 AM
LOL Did you GOPers catch these statements?
Quote"It's not about you. It's not about you," Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. "It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your job. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."
"- bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do," Santorum continued to say about Obama. "The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he's saying no I've got a different, I've got a different -- you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don't want to call it a theology, I'm fine, you can
have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that's not a new low. That's a reflection of exactly what ... it is a new low."
That is one nutty nigger right there, man.
What is he talking about? It looks like English but I can't understand it at all.
It's weird that everyone is acting like Santorum is likely to be the nominee now. I still think the GOP machinery will eventually figure out a way to destroy the guy. The party is of course run by people who value power more than ideology. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on February 21, 2012, 07:41:38 AM
It's weird that everyone is acting like Santorum is likely to be the nominee now. I still think the GOP machinery will eventually figure out a way to destroy the guy. The party is of course run by people who value power more than ideology. :sleep:
People forget the surge/crash examples of Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich (twice).
Quote from: Gups on February 21, 2012, 07:39:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2012, 06:18:13 AM
LOL Did you GOPers catch these statements?
Quote"It's not about you. It's not about you," Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. "It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your job. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."
"- bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do," Santorum continued to say about Obama. "The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he's saying no I've got a different, I've got a different -- you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don't want to call it a theology, I'm fine, you can
have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that's not a new low. That's a reflection of exactly what ... it is a new low."
That is one nutty nigger right there, man.
What is he talking about? It looks like English but I can't understand it at all.
You dont speak in tongues :pope: so it's nothing important.
Quote from: Gups on February 21, 2012, 07:39:55 AM
What is he talking about? It looks like English but I can't understand it at all.
Specifically, he's talking about the recent "scandal" over contraceptive insurance coverage and the Catholic Church. I am not sure if context make it more intelligible, though.
Is this just some dumbass way of going after Obama about *something*? I find it really hard to believe that even the fundies care about contraception - hell, the vast majority of Catholics use contraception!
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2012, 10:57:21 AM
Is this just some dumbass way of going after Obama about *something*? I find it really hard to believe that even the fundies care about contraception - hell, the vast majority of Catholics use contraception!
Yes, they're trying to turn it into a freedom-of-religion issue.
Like Christian Scientists who watch their kids die instead of taking them to get basic medical care.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2012, 10:57:21 AM
Is this just some dumbass way of going after Obama about *something*? I find it really hard to believe that even the fundies care about contraception - hell, the vast majority of Catholics use contraception!
I would think the smarter way to attack the rule would be that contraceptives should be outside the scope of mandatory insurance: 1) insurance should be to protect you from things going wrong, and animal design / biology being what it is, getting pregnant is sort of the point, and 2) contraceptives are usually rather cheap and elective, so it would be more cost efficient to leave them for individuals to buy.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2012, 10:57:21 AM
Is this just some dumbass way of going after Obama about *something*? I find it really hard to believe that even the fundies care about contraception - hell, the vast majority of Catholics use contraception!
The whole controversy was artificial from teh start. The Democrats get to whip up the base on some weird fake battle about Republicans wanting to enslave women or control their reproductive rights ala abortion whilst the Christians and libertarians freak out about big gubbermint telling businesses what to do. The stuff I see from both on Facebook is just scary. not funny, or sad, but outright scary.
Stuff like this makes me wonder just how much back room collusion goes on between the national committees. They've got to be raking in the cash from hysterical idiots.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 21, 2012, 11:18:24 AM
Stuff like this makes me wonder just how much back room collusion goes on between the national committees. They've got to be raking in the cash from hysterical idiots.
I'm sure they've already got plenty to pay salaries and overhead, so what would be the point?
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Yes, you've really comprehensively demolished feminists with this shining example of enlightenment.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2012, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2012, 10:57:21 AM
Is this just some dumbass way of going after Obama about *something*? I find it really hard to believe that even the fundies care about contraception - hell, the vast majority of Catholics use contraception!
I would think the smarter way to attack the rule would be that contraceptives should be outside the scope of mandatory insurance: 1) insurance should be to protect you from things going wrong, and animal design / biology being what it is, getting pregnant is sort of the point, and 2) contraceptives are usually rather cheap and elective, so it would be more cost efficient to leave them for individuals to buy.
Yeah, from an insurance points of view, covering contraception is sheer idiocy. It's supposed to be insurance, not a pre-paid plan.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 12:09:09 PM
Yes, you've really comprehensively demolished feminists with this shining example of enlightenment.
:D
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 12:10:14 PM
Yeah, from an insurance points of view, covering contraception is sheer idiocy. It's supposed to be insurance, not a pre-paid plan.
It's a heck of a lot cheaper than covering the pregnancy.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 12:10:14 PM
Yeah, from an insurance points of view, covering contraception is sheer idiocy. It's supposed to be insurance, not a pre-paid plan.
It's insurance against unwanted pregnancy! :w00t:
:unsure:
Nah, I got nothin'.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 12:09:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Yes, you've really comprehensively demolished feminists with this shining example of enlightenment.
Never fails :cool:
Women aren't people.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 12:10:14 PM
Yeah, from an insurance points of view, covering contraception is sheer idiocy. It's supposed to be insurance, not a pre-paid plan.
It's a heck of a lot cheaper than covering the pregnancy.
I don't think insurance companies are going to get out from covering the pregnancy.
From what I understand, covering birth control is more expensive, even if you possibly get some decrease in pregnancy at the margins.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2012, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2012, 10:57:21 AM
Is this just some dumbass way of going after Obama about *something*? I find it really hard to believe that even the fundies care about contraception - hell, the vast majority of Catholics use contraception!
I would think the smarter way to attack the rule would be that contraceptives should be outside the scope of mandatory insurance: 1) insurance should be to protect you from things going wrong, and animal design / biology being what it is, getting pregnant is sort of the point, and 2) contraceptives are usually rather cheap and elective, so it would be more cost efficient to leave them for individuals to buy.
Yeah, from an insurance points of view, covering contraception is sheer idiocy. It's supposed to be insurance, not a pre-paid plan.
But health insurance hasn't been about insurance for a very long time. It is in fact a pre-paid plan. Sort of.
I would not have any problem with contraception (non-mediclaly necessary contraception) being covered or not covered in general. I can see good arguments either way.
I cannot see any good argument of the form "My group has religious objections to some medical procedure, so we should be allowed to not provide particular medical procedures to those we employ, even if they are not in our religious group at all." That is just sheer idiocy.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
But health insurance hasn't been about insurance for a very long time. It is in fact a pre-paid plan. Sort of.
I would not have any problem with contraception (non-mediclaly necessary contraception) being covered or not covered in general. I can see good arguments either way.
I cannot see any good argument of the form "My group has religious objections to some medical procedure, so we should be allowed to not provide particular medical procedures to those we employ, even if they are not in our religious group at all." That is just sheer idiocy.
I more or less agree, but I've been signing up for a high deductible plan for the past few years--which is more like an insurance plan and cheaper (in part because of that, and in part because we get a healthier population signing up).
Quote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2012, 12:36:12 PM
From what I understand, covering birth control is more expensive,
:huh:
Are they still letting the drug companies milk R&D costs from the pill or something?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 19, 2012, 04:26:21 AM
But it reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's recent argument that the problem with American governance (and it's a specifically American problem) is that you developed democracy before bureaucracy. I'm far from sold but it's interesting and I think there's an element of truth to it:
QuoteConversely, I would argue that the quality of governance in the US tends to be low precisely because of a continuing tradition of Jacksonian populism. Americans with their democratic roots generally do not trust elite bureaucrats to the extent that the French, Germans, British, or Japanese have in years past. This distrust leads to micromanagement by Congress through proliferating rules and complex, self-contradictory legislative mandates which make poor quality governance a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US is thus caught in a low-level equilibrium trap, in which a hobbled bureaucracy validates everyone's view that the government can't do anything competently. The origins of this, as Martin Shefter pointed out many years ago, is due to the fact that democracy preceded bureaucratic consolidation in contrast to European democracies that arose out of aristocratic regimes.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/what-is-governance/
I like Francis F a lot but don't agree with this assessment. I don't think America has a bureaucratic governance problem, it has a policy problem. The federal bureaucracy works pretty well overall - staffing and leadership are competent, there is little corruption, and for the most part decisions are made technocratically. And contrary to what FF suggests, Congress doesn't tend to micromanage that much - it tends to set out broad priorities and mandates and leave the rule-making to the agencies. The bigger problem is poor policy or policymaking without any overall strategic view. So, for example, the Social Security administration works pretty well - the problem is not an incompetent bureaucracy that mismanages pensions, but that as a matter of policy, Congress has committed the federal government to make payments likely to prove unsustainble in the future.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 21, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Women aren't people.
Correct. They are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 21, 2012, 12:36:12 PM
From what I understand, covering birth control is more expensive,
:huh:
Are they still letting the drug companies milk R&D costs from the pill or something?
It's not like one pill means one less pregnancy. I imagine there is also a lot of substitution involved, where those covered for contraception get a far more expensive one, whereas those not covered just make do with condoms. Therefore, you're not really preventing any pregnancies at all in such cases.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 01:17:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 21, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Women aren't people.
Correct. They are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment.
As usual he did a shit job. Stupid 33 year old virgins.
Blame not the hammer for your fuck ups in carpentry.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 01:25:38 PM
Blame not the hammer for your fuck ups in carpentry.
Yeah, don't be unfair to the hammer.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcRTxziRzRKpGtKUGUgW_rof8D_4FpMRN6Gcb0AOmaCALcyPzOcj68xpYkrG&hash=02ad01f2813a96a857b892fa6cd787cc0897448f)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 06:59:14 PM
Then what you want is an effective prior restraint? To force people to get declaratory relief to show a movie? Because that's what the CU Court feared, and is basically what CU was attempting--and it's both administratively unwelcome and constitutionally improper to force speakers, under threat of enforcement action and even criminal sanctions, to seek governmental approval prior to dissemination.
That's back to the parade of horribles. In the 8 years BCRA existed, thousands of movies were made and distributed without anyone needing to get DJs, and without anyone even thinking this was a problem, even for movies with very strong political themes. Nor was there any risk of prior restraint - effective or otherwise - and the consequence of a violation was the risk of getting drawn into FEC admin proceedings and maybe having to pay a fine (since criminal sanctions can be avoided with a conciliation agreement).
QuoteFrom CU: "Here, Citizens United decided to litigate its case to the end. Today, Citizens United finally learns, two years after the fact, whether it could have spoken during the 2008 Presidential primary—long after the opportunity to persuade primary voters has passed."
That's an argument about whether they should have been able to get more expedited relief, not whether they are correct on the merits. On this theory, no regulation of electioneering activity - including fraud - would be permissible.
QuoteOK, I agree. So what should they have done?
1. They could have ruled for the FEC. They could have ruled that given the unrebutted Congressional findings concerning the dangers of corruption and the ability of covered corps to make expenditures through PACs, that the compelling state interest in clean elections overcame whatever speech interests adhere to corporate communications expressly advocating election or defeat of specific candidates. (The Court of course dodged the PACs "time place and manner" limitation by taking the strong position on corporate personhood and making formalistic distinctions between the corporate entity and their PAC)
2. They could have ruled to the extent that otherwise covered communications contain material, legitimate communicative purposes aside from the express advocacy of election outcomes (or where such advocacy was not the principal purpose) that the prohibition creates more serious First Amendment problems. That would justify an as applied challenge or narrowing construction by not a facial strikedown.
Instead, with no facial challenge presented to it, and with the Government therefore afforded no opportunity to argue the merits or demerits of one, the Court reached out, and in blithe disregard of the extensive factual findings of Congress and the District Court, reversed two decades of unquestioned precedent and summarily tossed the most acclaimed bipartisan law passed this century.
QuoteBelloti: "If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation, rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual."
Functionally, what is the difference? I'm not sure I see the rewriting that you are; in fact, I see many echoes of Belloti in Kennedy's opinion.
The difference is that Bellotti is talking about speech not the speaker. Belloti's point is that the identity of the speaker doesn't matter - thus the mere fact that a corporation is the speaker doesn't make the speech unprotected. The context is that Belloti begins with the assumed premise that if the question proceeds from the inherent right of corporations as artificial persons, that the corporation would and must lose, because it has not such inherent rights. Belloti deals with that by saying - this isn't about the rights of corporations to speak, it is about the power (or lack thereof) of Congress to regulate speech, no matter who or what utters it.
But Belotti doesn't get Kennedy where he needs to go because it only recognizes "source neturality" with respect to the "worth" of the speech and its informative value. There are other considerations that go into First Amendment analysis - including the quality of the state interest in regulation and the availability and usefulness of alternative avenues of expression. With respect to both of these, the corporate identity of a speaker may clearly be relevant. Kennedy elides all this by rewriting Bellotti to be a case about the a corporation's right to speak, which is exactly the question the Bellotti court says it ins't addressing.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Stay classy GOP.
Yeah, it's great to see "punish the slut" is alive and well. It's so cozy and medieval!
NB: I also naturally infer from derspiess' post that DERSPIESS HAS ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.
Joan, just to let you know, I'm not ignoring you. :)
Since I have to keep it kinda brief, I'll just point this out--you keep saying the facial challenge was not before them, but I believe it was. (I grant this is something of a because-they-say-so argument, but CU did raise it below, iirc they abandoned it during appeal, but my understanding is that this was enough for it to be properly raised even if done by the USSC itself. You can argue the propriety of a court doing so in this specific instance, but in general I like courts to not be strictly beholden to the claims, or the forms of the claims, before them.)
Derspiess's troll: SUCCESSFUL :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 03:25:10 PM
Derspiess's troll: SUCCESSFUL :lol:
It's very easy for notorious Republicans to troll. How can you ever be sure that something very stupid they're saying is a troll?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 21, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
Joan, just to let you know, I'm not ignoring you. :)
Since I have to keep it kinda brief, I'll just point this out--you keep saying the facial challenge was not before them, but I believe it was. (I grant this is something of a because-they-say-so argument, but CU did raise it below, iirc they abandoned it during appeal, but my understanding is that this was enough for it to be properly raised even if done by the USSC itself. You can argue the propriety of a court doing so in this specific instance, but in general I like courts to not be strictly beholden to the claims, or the forms of the claims, before them.)
The SCt can be real sticklers about not addressing arguments not properly raised in questions presented or waived before argument. If this was an appeal of a 9th circuit AEDPA decision, the same Justices in the majority would never consider such an argument. But here they bend over backwards to do it - and in a context that prevented the US government from effectively defending a Congressional statute no less. The whiff of hypocrisy is in the air.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 03:25:10 PM
Derspiess's troll: SUCCESSFUL :lol:
It's very easy for notorious Republicans to troll. How can you ever be sure that something very stupid they're saying is a troll?
LOL Can I be: NOTORIOUS G.O.P.?
No. Maybe I'll go back to being Notorious WAG though.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 03:27:58 PM
It's very easy for notorious Republicans to troll. How can you ever be sure that something very stupid they're saying is a troll?
Yes, they could be direct Gingrich or Santorum quotes!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 03:25:10 PM
Derspiess's troll: SUCCESSFUL :lol:
That's a pretty low bar for a successful troll: one post that goes "yeah, that's really clever."
Languish trolling standards: dying.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 21, 2012, 03:18:07 PM
NB: I also naturally infer from derspiess' post that DERSPIESS HAS ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.
Not really an issue with the wonders of modern medicine.
Quote from: Jacob on February 21, 2012, 05:46:38 PM
That's a pretty low bar for a successful troll: one post that goes "yeah, that's really clever."
Languish trolling standards: dying.
Guller, Ide and Fahdiz all directly responded, though in Fahdiz's case he may have been counter-trolling.
Besides, it was the tone of the responses as much as the content that suggests there were bites.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
Guller, Ide and Fahdiz all responded, though in Fahdiz's case he may have been counter-trolling.
:whistle:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
Guller, Ide and Fahdiz all directly responded, though in Fahdiz's case he may have been counter-trolling.
Besides, it was the tone of the responses as much as the content that suggests there were bites.
A sarcastic "yeah, that's a great argument", a smilie and a "stay classy" counts as bites for trolling?
Like I said, that's a pretty low bar.
Insisting a troll was weak and arguing about it is kind of a bite too. :lol:
Anyway, I wasn't saying it was Hall of Fame material or anything, just that it worked. Which is pretty funny considering how little effort he put into it. :contract:
FWIW, I don't have erectile dysfunction. Maybe in about 20 years, but not yet. There's so little stigma attached to it these days, I would probably admit if I did.
I do, however, quite enjoy "punishing sluts" :lol:
For anyone keeping score, I've mentioned "whore pills" 3 times on Languish and got fun responses each time.
I like to punish sluts too. That is why I own a leg spreader bar and a paddle.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2012, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 21, 2012, 03:23:35 PM
Joan, just to let you know, I'm not ignoring you. :)
Since I have to keep it kinda brief, I'll just point this out--you keep saying the facial challenge was not before them, but I believe it was. (I grant this is something of a because-they-say-so argument, but CU did raise it below, iirc they abandoned it during appeal, but my understanding is that this was enough for it to be properly raised even if done by the USSC itself. You can argue the propriety of a court doing so in this specific instance, but in general I like courts to not be strictly beholden to the claims, or the forms of the claims, before them.)
The SCt can be real sticklers about not addressing arguments not properly raised in questions presented or waived before argument. If this was an appeal of a 9th circuit AEDPA decision, the same Justices in the majority would never consider such an argument. But here they bend over backwards to do it - and in a context that prevented the US government from effectively defending a Congressional statute no less. The whiff of hypocrisy is in the air.
I dunno. See Lebron, cited by the CU Court--it was another First Amendment case, turning upon whether 1)Amtrak was a government actor and 2)whether Lebron properly preserved his claim. "Our traditional rule is that "
- nce a federal claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below." Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. ___, ___ (1992) (slip op., at 13); see also Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193, 198 (1899). Lebron's contention that Amtrak is part of the Government is in our view not a new claim within the meaning of that rule, but a new argument to support what has been his consistent claim: that Amtrak did not accord him the rights it was obliged to provide by the First Amendment. In fact, even if this were a claim not raised by petitioner below, we would ordinarily feel free to address it, since it was addressed by the court below. Our practice "permit
review of an issue not pressed so long as it has been passed upon . . . ." United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. ___, ___ (1992) (slip op., at 4). See Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U.S. 1083, 1099, n. 8 (1991); Stevens v. Department of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1, 8 (1991). " (Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., something U.S. something, citations totally left in.)
Fwiw, the advertisement at issue in Lebron was a left-wing billboard. So there's that. I'm just saying there's precedent for a more relaxed attitude to preservation in First Amendment cases, because of the importance etc. etc. It'd have been nice if they explicitly said this (maybe they did, but even the Lebron cite is given without much explanation--and yeah, I can see why you might think they're pulling it out of their ass, but while Kennedy definitely needed to more thoroughly support it, it's a supportable position.).
Here's an actual question, because I'm unsure: If the gov't lawyers didn't know this, and didn't brief an issue that could be resurrected, isn't that their fault?
Every time I read "whore pills" I want to know where I can buy some of those to slip into drinks...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 06:59:14 PM
Then what you want is an effective prior restraint? To force people to get declaratory relief to show a movie? Because that's what the CU Court feared, and is basically what CU was attempting--and it's both administratively unwelcome and constitutionally improper to force speakers, under threat of enforcement action and even criminal sanctions, to seek governmental approval prior to dissemination.
That's back to the parade of horribles. In the 8 years BCRA existed, thousands of movies were made and distributed without anyone needing to get DJs, and without anyone even thinking this was a problem, even for movies with very strong political themes. Nor was there any risk of prior restraint - effective or otherwise - and the consequence of a violation was the risk of getting drawn into FEC admin proceedings and maybe having to pay a fine (since criminal sanctions can be avoided with a conciliation agreement).
That's the problem with that part of the BCRA. By the same rationale it could be applied to media corporations--how does a court or law define a "media corporation" anyway when the entire point of the restriction is that the corporation is creating a communication, an expressive work? At what "level" of "media involvement" does it stop being a PAC and start being a film studio or something? At what point does a film studio
stop being a film studio? The point is, it's a nonsensical categorization, along the lines of dividing individuals into artist and consumer classes and then making laws which discriminate between them.
My favorite scenario is to point at Avatar, and to suggest imagining it came out in October 2004. By simply changing the date of release, but changing nothing in the film itself, Cameron's indulgent opus becomes a five hundred billion dollar electioneering communication paid for by a corporation that expressly advocates against George W. Bush and reached and was intended to reach far more than 50,000 individuals. It's tremendously unlikely that distributor Fox or Cameron's production company would face an FEC enforcement action, even without the media exemption. But take that media exemption away, or chip away at it, and I think you may start to have real problems, including a chilling effect at the boundary.
Yes, it's a parade of horribles, a slippery-slope argument. But such arguments have appeal, especially when concerning fundamental rights, because at the boundary enforcement becomes arbitrary, political interests may be served instead of public ones, and often the boundary keeps creeping closer to things we actually care about.
Also, this argument is not my sole basis for support of CU.
Quote
That's an argument about whether they should have been able to get more expedited relief, not whether they are correct on the merits. On this theory, no regulation of electioneering activity - including fraud - would be permissible.
C'mon, who's parading horribles now? No one is saying that fraud can't be punished.
Quote
1. They could have ruled for the FEC. They could have ruled that given the unrebutted Congressional findings concerning the dangers of corruption and the ability of covered corps to make expenditures through PACs, that the compelling state interest in clean elections overcame whatever speech interests adhere to corporate communications expressly advocating election or defeat of specific candidates. (The Court of course dodged the PACs "time place and manner" limitation by taking the strong position on corporate personhood and making formalistic distinctions between the corporate entity and their PAC)
Well, that distinction is not by default so formalistic. Specifically, in CU corporate donations were not the major source of funding for
Hillary: Do You Want to Be Like Garbon?. This is the de minimis exception suggested by the government, which is about as far as you could go without stepping on little people. But you're still stepping on big people, which is not OK.
Quote2. They could have ruled to the extent that otherwise covered communications contain material, legitimate communicative purposes aside from the express advocacy of election outcomes (or where such advocacy was not the principal purpose) that the prohibition creates more serious First Amendment problems. That would justify an as applied challenge or narrowing construction by not a facial strikedown.
Ala Wisconsin Right to Life?
QuoteThe difference is that Bellotti is talking about speech not the speaker. Belloti's point is that the identity of the speaker doesn't matter - thus the mere fact that a corporation is the speaker doesn't make the speech unprotected. The context is that Belloti begins with the assumed premise that if the question proceeds from the inherent right of corporations as artificial persons, that the corporation would and must lose, because it has not such inherent rights. Belloti deals with that by saying - this isn't about the rights of corporations to speak, it is about the power (or lack thereof) of Congress to regulate speech, no matter who or what utters it.
And assuming that this is a difference that makes a difference, I still think that's exactly what CU does. The BCRA discriminated against corps and unions.
QuoteBut Belotti doesn't get Kennedy where he needs to go because it only recognizes "source neturality" with respect to the "worth" of the speech and its informative value. There are other considerations that go into First Amendment analysis - including the quality of the state interest in regulation and the availability and usefulness of alternative avenues of expression. With respect to both of these, the corporate identity of a speaker may clearly be relevant. Kennedy elides all this by rewriting Bellotti to be a case about the a corporation's right to speak, which is exactly the question the Bellotti court says it ins't addressing.
I think this is where we fundamentally differ. As I said, I have another basis for agreeing with the opinion. I do not, nor did the CU Court, recognize a compelling state interest in regulating political speech as the BCRA did. The BCRA was not only bad because it casts a shadow over other speech, it was bad because it prevents speech, period, based on the identity of the speaker. Thus bye-bye Austin, and, if needs must, the warping of Belloti to that hack Kennedy's whim.
How did we get on this again, anyway? Tax policy, right? You should pay more taxes, Joan, but I will defend to the death your right to complain about them, through PAC if necessary. :P
Quote from: PDH on February 21, 2012, 10:09:33 PM
Every time I read "whore pills" I want to know where I can buy some of those to slip into drinks...
Instant whore, just add water?
We truly do live in the future. :)
Quote from: PDH on February 21, 2012, 10:09:33 PM
Every time I read "whore pills" I want to know where I can buy some of those to slip into drinks...
Roofies, really? :o
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Oral contraceptives lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. It treats a medical condition.
Quote from: garbon on February 21, 2012, 10:51:57 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 21, 2012, 10:09:33 PM
Every time I read "whore pills" I want to know where I can buy some of those to slip into drinks...
Roofies, really? :o
And given he works at a university, he already is where he can buy some.
Quote from: Fate on February 21, 2012, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Oral contraceptives lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. It treats a medical condition.
You can't treat a condition that doesn't exist yet.
Preventive medicine is for godless commie faggots.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 22, 2012, 12:23:12 AM
Preventive medicine is for godless commie faggots.
Yeah, everyone knows that you're supposed to pray to Jesus that you didn't just knock up that slut you busted in.
Because it's what God wants.
God wants us to outrun the carriage capacity of our planet. It's in the Bible.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 22, 2012, 12:41:18 AM
God wants us to outrun the carriage capacity of our planet. It's in the Bible.
God figured we'd be off the planet by now.
Quote from: citizen k on February 22, 2012, 12:56:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 22, 2012, 12:41:18 AM
God wants us to outrun the carriage capacity of our planet. It's in the Bible.
God figured we'd be off the planet by now.
We'd all be in heaven now if we didn't keep voting for godless socialists.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 12:21:37 AM
Quote from: Fate on February 21, 2012, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Oral contraceptives lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. It treats a medical condition.
You can't treat a condition that doesn't exist yet.
Watch out. He's going to med school at the same university Martinus got his law degree.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Watch out. He's going to med school at the same university Martinus got his law degree.
So the degree's interchangeable then?
An associate of arts opens doors to an infinite number of exciting careers.
In fairness, Fate actually seems pretty on the ball regarding medical stuff.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 22, 2012, 01:59:41 AM
An associate of arts opens doors to an infinite number of exciting careers.
That's what they told me when I got mine. And all that time in bail bonds, I was opening doors with a maul and a crowbar, instead of the degree. :hedslap:
Heh, I have an A.A. too.
Actually, if you go by Barrister academic guidelines, I have three and a half of them.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/showbiz/obama-red-white-and-blues/index.html
One of the reasons why the GOP doesnt stand a chance in 2012. They cant compete with Obama.
Just a cool cat. :smoke:
Virginia Dildo Rape - please comment.
Quote from: Viking on February 22, 2012, 05:01:59 AM
Virginia Dildo Rape - please comment.
If you're looking for band names, I'd keep looking.
Quote from: Viking on February 22, 2012, 05:01:59 AM
Virginia Dildo Rape - please comment.
State-Sanctioned Vaginal Probes. Much more appropriate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 08:05:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 22, 2012, 05:01:59 AM
Virginia Dildo Rape - please comment.
State-Sanctioned Vaginal Probes. Much more appropriate.
What is an unwanted vaginal probe by a piece of plastic other than a dildo rape?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 08:42:42 PM
Insisting a troll was weak and arguing about it is kind of a bite too. :lol:
Anyway, I wasn't saying it was Hall of Fame material or anything, just that it worked. Which is pretty funny considering how little effort he put into it. :contract:
You replied to me! Jacob troll: SUCCESSFUL :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 12:21:37 AM
Quote from: Fate on February 21, 2012, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I always got annoyed at feminazis crying how insurance companies pay for Viagra but not their whore pills. Viagra treats a medical condition. Not being able to keep your legs closed is not a medical condition.
Oral contraceptives lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. It treats a medical condition.
You can't treat a condition that doesn't exist yet.
Fine, it's preventing disease.
The effect is fairly substantial - a 60% decrease in ovarian cancer rates after 10 years of usage. I presume vaccines and other preventative measures with substantial effects are covered by insurance companies.
How much does ovarian or endometrial cancer cost to treat vs 15-20 years of whore pills?
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Watch out. He's going to med school at the same university Martinus got his law degree.
Fate or derspiess?
Quote from: Fate on February 22, 2012, 10:53:53 AM
How much does ovarian or endometrial cancer cost to treat vs 15-20 years of whore pills?
:hmm: Aren't you missing one of the two absolutely necessary variables in the equation?
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
You replied to me! Jacob troll: SUCCESSFUL :lol:
:P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2012, 02:04:44 AM
That's what they told me when I got mine. And all that time in bail bonds, I was opening doors with a maul and a crowbar, instead of the degree. :hedslap:
:D But they weren't wrong about the excitement!
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2012, 02:39:53 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/showbiz/obama-red-white-and-blues/index.html
One of the reasons why the GOP doesnt stand a chance in 2012. They cant compete with Obama.
Just a cool cat. :smoke:
Better than Putin's Blueberry Hill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdcowE5qpxU)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
Instead, with no facial challenge presented to it, and with the Government therefore afforded no opportunity to argue the merits or demerits of one, the Court reached out, and in blithe disregard of the extensive factual findings of Congress and the District Court, reversed two decades of unquestioned precedent and summarily tossed the most acclaimed bipartisan law passed this century.
Indeed - this is the most blatant example of judicial activism I have seen in my lifetime, and maybe the worst since Dredd Scott.
And, of course, the Republican candidates who practically suck the dicks of the most blatant judicial activists now on the court will also piss and cry and moan about how much they hate judicial activism. It's really quite funny, when one doesn't consider the damage to the fabric of democracy.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2012, 12:21:37 AM
Quote from: Fate on February 21, 2012, 11:31:34 PM
Oral contraceptives lower the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. It treats a medical condition.
You can't treat a condition that doesn't exist yet.
A risk is a condition that doesn't exist?
Okay. :huh:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 21, 2012, 11:18:24 AM
The whole controversy was artificial from teh start. The Democrats get to whip up the base on some weird fake battle about Republicans wanting to enslave women or control their reproductive rights ala abortion whilst the Christians and libertarians freak out about big gubbermint telling businesses what to do. The stuff I see from both on Facebook is just scary. not funny, or sad, but outright scary.
It was totally made up, true, but not by the Democrats. These religious-affiliated organizations had for years been providing contraceptives as part of their medical plans, without a peep. The law was changed to require medical plans to provide contraception without a co-pay, and that is when the religious right decided to pretend that they never had, and never would, supply contraceptives because it somehow violated their "religious freedoms."
Its a pretty feeble retcon, but then all retcons tend to be feeble. It appears to be a retcon that has been successful, though; no one on the right seems to remember that we have not always been at war with Eastasia.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2012, 10:58:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Watch out. He's going to med school at the same university Martinus got his law degree.
Fate or derspiess?
Probably Fate. Unless derspeiss went to med school.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 12:46:36 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 21, 2012, 11:18:24 AM
The whole controversy was artificial from teh start. The Democrats get to whip up the base on some weird fake battle about Republicans wanting to enslave women or control their reproductive rights ala abortion whilst the Christians and libertarians freak out about big gubbermint telling businesses what to do. The stuff I see from both on Facebook is just scary. not funny, or sad, but outright scary.
It was totally made up, true, but not by the Democrats. These religious-affiliated organizations had for years been providing contraceptives as part of their medical plans, without a peep. The law was changed to require medical plans to provide contraception without a co-pay, and that is when the religious right decided to pretend that they never had, and never would, supply contraceptives because it somehow violated their "religious freedoms."
Its a pretty feeble retcon, but then all retcons tend to be feeble. It appears to be a retcon that has been successful, though; no one on the right seems to remember that we have not always been at war with Eastasia.
In a world of sound bytes and retro-editing speeches this is not surprising.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2012, 10:58:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Watch out. He's going to med school at the same university Martinus got his law degree.
Fate or derspiess?
Probably Fate. Unless derspeiss went to med school.
Only to see my cousin graduate.
Santorum just said the V22 Osprey was a vital program in fighting the War on Terror. :XD:
Was he talking to a room full of folks who build Ospreys?
We're still trying to build the Osprey?
Like, I think they're as neat an idea as the next guy, but when the only tangible benefit of the program is inspiring this
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2Fthunderwolfopen.jpg&hash=0327288ff552efa09b514101f7b0a65fba8edd1f)
I think you may have to concede that the V-Rocs have won.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi637.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu91%2FMyasishchev%2FStratofortress7b.jpg&hash=6b9b7f6cab101c3d03b3c157e058a37c303b18db)
:mmm:
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
Air Superiority Bomber? Isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 22, 2012, 10:30:55 PM
Air Superiority Bomber? Isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?
Maybe it bombs other planes. It's Ideologues ideas taken to their logical extremes.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
America lost the War on Terror when the Patriot Act was passed.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:31:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 22, 2012, 10:30:55 PM
Air Superiority Bomber? Isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?
Maybe it bombs other planes. It's Ideologues ideas taken to their logical extremes.
:D
Santorum failed to put away Romney at the debate, and reviews say that Santorum had a disappointing performance. The momentum seems to favor Romney winning both Arizona and Michigan. These are primaries, not caucuses, so it is less likely that Santorum will pull an upset like he did in low-populated Colorado and Minnesota.
Rick Perry was spinning for Gingrich last night. Of one Romney-Santorum exchange he said 'you could see them getting smaller. They got literally, not figuratively, literally smaller.'
Very funny exchange last night between Paul and Santorum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjN0gGb46jI
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:31:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 22, 2012, 10:30:55 PM
Air Superiority Bomber? Isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?
Maybe it bombs other planes. It's Ideologues ideas taken to their logical extremes.
Says the guy that jizzes over the concept of Ballistic Missile Dreadnaughts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 07:04:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:31:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 22, 2012, 10:30:55 PM
Air Superiority Bomber? Isn't that almost a contradiction in terms?
Maybe it bombs other planes. It's Ideologues ideas taken to their logical extremes.
Says the guy that jizzes over the concept of Ballistic Missile Dreadnaughts.
Is that the new way to rapidly deploy a fleet?
I'd hate to be one of the crew on those.
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
Yes, you did. Your surrender was completed in July of 2011.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
Yes, you did. Your surrender was completed in July of 2011.
Funny, everything I read says it was January 20th, 2009.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 09:26:56 AM
Funny, everything I read says it was January 20th, 2009.
It's not official until the Governor General affixes the Queen's rubber stamp
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
Yes, you did. Your surrender was completed in July of 2011.
Funny, everything I read says it was January 20th, 2009.
I understand what grumbles is referring to, but Money's has escaped me.
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
Yes, you did. Your surrender was completed in July of 2011.
Funny, everything I read says it was January 20th, 2009.
I understand what grumbles is referring to, but Money's has escaped me.
Obama's inauguration.
Despite Romney's bruising primary losses and the economy's improvement, Obama loses to Romney by 4 points in the latest Gallup Poll this past week. Weird.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Romney-Santorum-Closely-Matched-Against-Obama-Nationally.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Romney-Santorum-Closely-Matched-Against-Obama-Nationally.aspx)
Obama will crush Romney, nobody votes third party.
Rasmussen has Obama ten up against Mitt and seven up against Sant,. AP yesterday was similar and Quinnipag showing small Obama leads (except against Newt)
Also decent leads in Virginia and Penn for Obama.
I suspect Gallup's poll was rogue
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
Romney has some chance. Santorum a whiff of one if everything goes right for him. Newt would get slaughtered.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
Romney is not a candidate of the religious right. They hate him.
Quote from: Gups on February 23, 2012, 01:31:54 PM
Rasmussen has Obama ten up against Mitt and seven up against Sant,. AP yesterday was similar and Quinnipag showing small Obama leads
Yes, all other national polls had Romney trailing Obama by widening margins for the past two weeks, so that is why I was surprised by today's Gallup poll release.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
Let the noodle heads blame rising energy costs on the President--like he has any control over a fungible commodity traded worldwide on a single currency subject to speculation in the first place--and seen what happens.
What I don't understand is how Santorum has more chance of beating Obama then Newt.
The dude is right out of the 40's.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
It was a process that began over twenty years ago and seems to be unstoppable barring a Ron Paul landslide.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 23, 2012, 02:07:52 PM
What I don't understand is how Santorum has more chance of beating Obama then Newt.
The dude is right out of the 40's.
1 People already know Newt, Santorum will have "undecideds" who would never vote for him in a million years.
2 Santorum's not a pompous know-it-all.
3 Newt gets points off from lots of people for decisions made in his personal life.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
Let the noodle heads blame rising energy costs on the President--like he has any control over a fungible commodity traded worldwide on a single currency subject to speculation in the first place--and seen what happens.
He vetoed Keystone XL. :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 22, 2012, 10:23:42 PM
Didn't we already lose the War on Terror?
Yes, you did. Your surrender was completed in July of 2011.
Actually, I think Canada might have won the War on Terror.
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 02:16:28 PM
He vetoed Keystone XL. :mad:
That was probably a mistake, but I doubt it has any bearing on the current spikes in fuel prices.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2012, 02:31:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 02:16:28 PM
He vetoed Keystone XL. :mad:
That was probably a mistake, but I doubt it has any bearing on the current spikes in fuel prices.
He's not bombing Israel.
Ok, Taft did get beat by the third party candidate, but it was one coming from his own party.
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
Let the noodle heads blame rising energy costs on the President--like he has any control over a fungible commodity traded worldwide on a single currency subject to speculation in the first place--and seen what happens.
He vetoed Keystone XL. :mad:
And rightfully so.
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 02:59:02 PM
If you want to tell anything to President Taft you best get a shovel.
Or a ouija board!
Obama assures Hispanics that he will eventually get immigration reform done within '5 years'.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/obama-ive-got-five-years-left-to-solve-immigration-115342.html (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/obama-ive-got-five-years-left-to-solve-immigration-115342.html)
Empty promises beat the heck out of what the Republicans are offering them.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 23, 2012, 02:07:52 PM
What I don't understand is how Santorum has more chance of beating Obama then Newt.
The dude is right out of the 40's.
Captain America would kick Rick Santorum's ass.
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 02:59:02 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 23, 2012, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 23, 2012, 02:32:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2012, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2012, 01:27:47 PM
nobody votes third party.
Tell that one to Al Gore.
Or Bush Sr.
Or President Taft. Third place! :D
If you want to tell anything to President Taft you best get a shovel.
And a crane. LOL.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 23, 2012, 03:18:14 PM
Empty promises beat the heck out of what the Republicans are offering them.
Oh, I don't know. Tancredo might be willing to spring for a bus ticket to Matamoros. That's better than nothing. :P
Quote from: Neil on February 23, 2012, 02:31:00 PM
Actually, I think Canada might have won the War on Terror.
Canada lost little honor when its army routed out of the War on Terror,
for it had but little honor to lose, but it did lose all that it had.
[paraphrased from whom, oh history trivia buffs?]
Sulla :wub:
I'm allowed to like the guy too. Nobody is stealing anyone's schtick here. Settle down, Beavis.
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2012, 07:28:28 PM
I'm allowed to like the guy too. Nobody is stealing anyone's schtick here. Settle down, Beavis.
How Marius like. Steal my schtick. Gonna steal my command next?
Maybe I'll be Claudius to your Caligula and steal your throne. OH SURE, HE HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THAT. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2012, 07:34:55 PM
Maybe I'll be Claudius to your Caligula and steal your throne. OH SURE, HE HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THAT. :rolleyes:
My favorite toilet....!
I liked the part in Caligula when Caligula had Gemellus set up. NO THEEESER NOOOOOOO!
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2012, 07:34:55 PM
Maybe I'll be Claudius to your Caligula and steal your throne. OH SURE, HE HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THAT. :rolleyes:
Would Robert Graves just make stuff up? I think not.
I liked the part in I Claudius when Derek Jacobi started crying hysterically when he found out his wife had been killed. IRL he was like "k, more wine PLZ" :cool:
BY JOVE Messalina was hot.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 23, 2012, 02:31:00 PM
Actually, I think Canada might have won the War on Terror.
Canada lost little honor when its army routed out of the War on Terror,
for it had but little honor to lose, but it did lose all that it had.
The best way to win was not to fight.
Quote[paraphrased from whom, oh history trivia buffs?]
I think somebody was talking about Italians. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 23, 2012, 02:31:00 PM
Actually, I think Canada might have won the War on Terror.
Canada lost little honor when its army routed out of the War on Terror,
for it had but little honor to lose, but it did lose all that it had.
[paraphrased from whom, oh history trivia buffs?]
:yawn:
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2012, 03:14:57 AM
:yawn:
I don't remember that line in Snow White. :hmm:
While the race in Michigan remains a toss-up between Romney and Santorum, there is the possibility that Paul might beat Gingrich for third place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
I don't think Obama is losing to any of these clowns.
But if he did...that would be a pretty huge upset. I am a little afraid of what it would mean for the USA. The nutbars would be validated, and the GOP would be firmly ensconced as the party of the religious right.
I think that unless a scandal breaks or there is some other major misstep, the eventual nominee looks worse today than he ever will. Assuming the nominee is eventually Romney, while he starts to pull away from the competition he will look more like a winner, and there will be many stories about how he weathered the storm and is better for it. Then most republicans will rally around him and pretend he is the next great leader. I'd guess he will move ahead of Obama for a while after that.
While everybody is focused on the GOP primary, do not forget that the President is campaigning, too.
The Obama campaign outspent the Romney campaign by several million dollars in the month of January.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/in-january-obama-campaign-outspent-romneys/
QuoteSome of Mr. Obama's expenses were the kind that traditionally eat up a lot of campaign cash, like the production and placement of television ads, on which the campaign spent about $3.4 million; mail and postage, which ate up $2.8 million; and telemarketing, which racked up a bill of $1.4 million.
The campaign's single largest expense was for Internet advertising: Mr. Obama spent $4.3 million on Web ads in January, about as much as some of the Republican candidates raised.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2012, 08:31:24 AM
While the race in Michigan remains a toss-up between Romney and Santorum, there is the possibility that Paul might beat Gingrich for third place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
538 has Romney with an 88% chance to win Michigan.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2012, 10:56:29 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2012, 08:31:24 AM
While the race in Michigan remains a toss-up between Romney and Santorum, there is the possibility that Paul might beat Gingrich for third place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_republican_presidential_primary-1589.html
538 has Romney with an 88% chance to win Michigan.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
67% to win Michigan. 88% to win Arizona.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7198%2F6779672294_495087c5b2_b.jpg&hash=29591d604646d264515b8b49ea4573f38487ad9f)
That graph is not to scale. Newt's head should be much bigger. :rolleyes:
Plus, I don't think Romney is that much taller than Gingrich.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2012, 11:03:02 AM
67% to win Michigan. 88% to win Arizona.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7198%2F6779672294_495087c5b2_b.jpg&hash=29591d604646d264515b8b49ea4573f38487ad9f)
:Embarrass:
Romney does seem to have the advantage that he does better in the winner take all states than the proportional ones.
This is excellent:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-23-2012/indecision-2012---rick-santorum-s-conservative-rhetoric
Quote from: Berkut on February 24, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
This is excellent:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-23-2012/indecision-2012---rick-santorum-s-conservative-rhetoric
:lol:
It's good to see that Professor Duncan has another gig going besides his teaching job. :P
That was good
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2012, 12:43:59 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 24, 2012, 11:03:02 AM
67% to win Michigan. 88% to win Arizona.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7198%2F6779672294_495087c5b2_b.jpg&hash=29591d604646d264515b8b49ea4573f38487ad9f)
:Embarrass:
What's the problem?
I think the GOP should just go whole hog and pick the craziest guy they can. Just get it out of their system.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2012, 05:14:24 PM
I think the GOP should just go whole hog and pick the craziest guy they can. Just get it out of their system.
Give them some time.
Newt just said he could get gas down to $2.50/gallon if he were elected. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
Newt just said he could get gas down to $2.50/gallon if he were elected. :huh:
Well then, that settles it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
Newt just said he could get gas down to $2.50/gallon if he were elected. :huh:
Didn't Ms. Bachmann promise gas under $2 at one point during the campaign?
Big deal. I can get gas for under a buck at Taco Bell.
Rick Santorum doesn't want you to get a college education, because they're Obama Indoctrination Camps.
QuoteRick Santorum believes Obama wants to 'indoctrinate' students by encouraging higher college enrollment. The GOP hopeful sat down with Glenn Beck for a wide-ranging interview that aired Thursday, and he warned that higher education leads to secularization.
"I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely," he said. "The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
Obama has recently doubled down on his efforts to boost college attendance, pushing to make schools more affordable and accountable.
Santorum told Beck that "62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it," but failed to say where he found that figure. He has said that parents should have control of their children's education, and vowed to home-school his seven children in the White House if he is elected president.
His wife, Karen, also talked with Beck and said that her husband entered the race because it was God's will.
"I did always feel in my heart that God had big plans for Rick," she said. "Eventually it was there, tugging at my heart. ... When Obamacare passed, that was it. That put the fire in my belly."
Oh man, this guy just keeps delivering. And to think, all this time, I had guessed Bachmann was the nuttiest nigger in the bunch.
Quote from: CountDeMoneyRick Santorum doesn't want you to get a college education
That crafty bastard may get my vote yet.
I do like the implication that God hates health insurance. :lol: Keeps you out of Heaven longer, don'chya know?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2012, 08:09:54 PM
Rick Santorum doesn't want you to get a college education, because they're Obama Indoctrination Camps.
QuoteRick Santorum believes Obama wants to 'indoctrinate' students by encouraging higher college enrollment. The GOP hopeful sat down with Glenn Beck for a wide-ranging interview that aired Thursday, and he warned that higher education leads to secularization.
"I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely," he said. "The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
Obama has recently doubled down on his efforts to boost college attendance, pushing to make schools more affordable and accountable.
Santorum told Beck that "62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it," but failed to say where he found that figure. He has said that parents should have control of their children's education, and vowed to home-school his seven children in the White House if he is elected president.
His wife, Karen, also talked with Beck and said that her husband entered the race because it was God's will.
"I did always feel in my heart that God had big plans for Rick," she said. "Eventually it was there, tugging at my heart. ... When Obamacare passed, that was it. That put the fire in my belly."
Oh man, this guy just keeps delivering. And to think, all this time, I had guessed Bachmann was the nuttiest nigger in the bunch.
:lol:
Yay! I'm the enemy now. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
Newt just said he could get gas down to $2.50/gallon if he were elected. :huh:
i dont question his ability to produce massive supplies of hot air, but that's not the kind of gas we need.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
Newt just said he could get gas down to $2.50/gallon if he were elected. :huh:
They're your people. Don't act so surprised. We've been telling you about this kind of shit for years now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2012, 08:09:54 PM
Oh man, this guy just keeps delivering. And to think, all this time, I had guessed Bachmann was the nuttiest nigger in the bunch.
He's always been crazy - we just didn't have to hear so much about him before.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2012, 09:26:27 PM
They're your people. Don't act so surprised. We've been telling you about this kind of shit for years now.
Don't be a tool Raz.
I actually kinda agree with the point Jon Stewart appears to be making in that clip - at least Santorum is honest and doesnt try to obfuscate the crazy hateful ideology that the US conservatives espouse. That's kinda refreshing.
Doublespeak works both ways. It hides the candidate's true intentions from the extremes as well as the middle.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2012, 08:09:54 PM
Rick Santorum doesn't want you to get a college education, because they're Obama Indoctrination Camps.
QuoteRick Santorum believes Obama wants to 'indoctrinate' students by encouraging higher college enrollment. The GOP hopeful sat down with Glenn Beck for a wide-ranging interview that aired Thursday, and he warned that higher education leads to secularization.
"I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely," he said. "The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
Oh man, this guy just keeps delivering. And to think, all this time, I had guessed Bachmann was the nuttiest nigger in the bunch.
College education is for snobs.
Quote"President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said as the crowd howled with laughter and applause. "There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/rick-santorum-obama-wants-to-send-your-kids
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2012, 03:00:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2012, 09:26:27 PM
They're your people. Don't act so surprised. We've been telling you about this kind of shit for years now.
Don't be a tool Raz.
I'll stop when you stop.
I mean, there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether trying to get everyone to go to college is the best approach; but to cast it as being it like that? Seems toxic to me.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2012, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2012, 08:09:54 PM
Rick Santorum doesn't want you to get a college education, because they're Obama Indoctrination Camps.
QuoteRick Santorum believes Obama wants to 'indoctrinate' students by encouraging higher college enrollment. The GOP hopeful sat down with Glenn Beck for a wide-ranging interview that aired Thursday, and he warned that higher education leads to secularization.
"I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely," he said. "The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
Oh man, this guy just keeps delivering. And to think, all this time, I had guessed Bachmann was the nuttiest nigger in the bunch.
College education is for snobs.
Quote"President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said as the crowd howled with laughter and applause. "There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/rick-santorum-obama-wants-to-send-your-kids
So we are going all out for ignorance now?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2012, 03:29:26 PM
So we are going all out for ignorance now?
The GOP's made Trailer Park Republicans and other mouth breathers that don't make enough money to be Republican their core constituency for years; might as well come out and finally say it. IN DUMBFUCKISTAN WE TRUST
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
I mean, there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether trying to get everyone to go to college is the best approach; but to cast it as being it like that? Seems toxic to me.
There seems to be a distrust in the conservative camp of people who deal in information. Educators, Journalists, Scientists, etc. I think it's because they are afraid of any information that might be detrimental to their cause. They can't totally control these sources of information, but they can inoculate their constituency against it and offer "conservative" alternatives to it. The media is to liberal, so we get Fox News. Wikipedia has systematic bias, so we have conservapedia, schools teach things that don't mesh well with talk radio, so we home school our kids (unless they can get control of school boards). This allows a conservative politician to stand up and say "everyone is a liar but me. Don't listen to anyone but me and the approved sources of information". It's a clever system of self-censorship.
I'm not sure that's it. I think there is also the though that many universities are breeding grounds for liberal politics. There certainly was a large element of disdain for America advocated by professors in the Bay Area.
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2012, 04:00:02 PM
I'm not sure that's it. I think there is also the though that many universities are breeding grounds for liberal politics. There certainly was a large element of disdain for America advocated by professors in the Bay Area.
Political agenda or not, you're going to have a lot of tension and divergence anywhere young people get away from home for the first time and exposed to new ideas, concepts (like science) and even cultures.*
Kids have been using university to discover their own way since before the days of Socrates.
*As well as binge-drinking, date-raping, and first-time homo sex.
I went to college and I came out a Demoncrat too. :(
Quote from: Caliga on February 25, 2012, 04:16:40 PM
I went to college and I came out a Demoncrat too. :(
Bastard.
I took absolutely no interest, what so ever, in college politics; I assumed I'd moved away to engage in adult activities rather than Juvenilia.
Quote from: mongers on February 25, 2012, 08:17:00 PM
I took absolutely no interest, what so ever, in college politics; I assumed I'd moved away to engage in adult activities rather than Juvenilia.
Same. The one exception was a friend of mine running for a post in the Uni paper who was running against a very unpleasant girl who smeared him as homophobic and anti-semitic, he's part Jewish and has many gay friends and a gay brother. But it was really horrible. That's the only time I even voted in a Uni election.
I wasn't really talking about college politics but rather the political agendas (with regards to national issues) of professors bleeding through.
I was already pretty red when I went to college. I think law school actually conservatized me to some degree. You know, while I was in it. Now I'm all about burning shit down again. Even if things are finally starting to look vaguely up, I will NEVER FORGET.
QuoteI was already pretty red when I went to college
Stay out of the sun.
Quote from: mongers on February 25, 2012, 08:17:00 PM
I took absolutely no interest, what so ever, in college politics; I assumed I'd moved away to engage in adult activities rather than Juvenilia.
Think you're missing the point here on this one, Lance.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
I mean, there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether trying to get everyone to go to college is the best approach; but to cast it as being it like that? Seems toxic to me.
I don't even think it's a legitimate debate. If you see someone who is trying to tell you that everybody go to college, chances are they're either a dangerous left-wing weirdo or they're involved in marketing for the post-secondary industry.
Universitas delenda est.
Does any of the candidates have a realistic plan to reduce the deficit?
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2012, 04:00:55 AM
Does any of the candidates have a realistic plan to reduce the deficit?
I don't think any candidate has
any plan to reduce the deficit.
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2012, 04:00:55 AM
Does any of the candidates have a realistic plan to reduce the deficit?
Yes, Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/25/us/obamas-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit.html
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2012, 04:00:55 AM
Does any of the candidates have a realistic plan to reduce the deficit?
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2012, 04:00:55 AM
Does any of the candidates have a realistic plan to reduce the deficit?
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Cutting taxes increases growth, thus increases revenues and decreases the deficit. ;)
How much revenue would be generated if we taxed religious organization?
Quote from: Phillip V on February 26, 2012, 11:39:45 AM
How much revenue would be generated if we taxed religious organization?
You could probably pay off the deficit just taxing Scientology :P
Quote from: Phillip V on February 26, 2012, 11:39:45 AM
How much revenue would be generated if we taxed religious organization?
Probably just about nothing. I would imagine that churches would have a pretty easy time writing off charitable shit, except for scams like Scientology.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Do you happen to know the nuts and bolts of Paul's proposal?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Do you happen to know the nuts and bolts of Paul's proposal?
Cut $1 trillion in his first year. Abolish Departments of HUD, Energy, Commerce, Interior and Education and the TSA. End foreign deployments of troops and foreign aid. Cut Federal employees by 10%. End Medicare and Social Security as Federal programs, except for veterans and current retirees move it to the states.
Then cut corporate tax to 15% and end lots of other taxes with the end goal of a 0% income tax.
So I'm not sure how much it can be considered a 'realistic' proposal to end the deficit :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Do you happen to know the nuts and bolts of Paul's proposal?
Cut $1 trillion in his first year. Abolish Departments of HUD, Energy, Commerce, Interior and Education and the TSA. End foreign deployments of troops and foreign aid. Cut Federal employees by 10%. End Medicare and Social Security as Federal programs, except for veterans and current retirees move it to the states.
Then cut corporate tax to 15% and end lots of other taxes with the end goal of a 0% income tax.
So I'm not sure how much it can be considered a 'realistic' proposal to end the deficit :mellow:
Now you know why Paul supports pot legalization. He's been smoking some real good shit.
So Santorum states: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"
Is he trained to say all the wrong things?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Do you happen to know the nuts and bolts of Paul's proposal?
Cut $1 trillion in his first year. Abolish Departments of HUD, Energy, Commerce, Interior and Education and the TSA. End foreign deployments of troops and foreign aid. Cut Federal employees by 10%. End Medicare and Social Security as Federal programs, except for veterans and current retirees move it to the states.
Then cut corporate tax to 15% and end lots of other taxes with the end goal of a 0% income tax.
So I'm not sure how much it can be considered a 'realistic' proposal to end the deficit :mellow:
No government, no deficit.
Quote from: PDH on February 26, 2012, 02:26:10 PM
Is he trained to say all the wrong things?
His God commands it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2012, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
I think the only candidates whose policies would reduce the national debt are Obama and Paul. All the other Republicans are promising various kinds of unfunded tax cuts and increases tot the defence budget. Romney promises those two and attacks Obama for cutting Medicare.
Do you happen to know the nuts and bolts of Paul's proposal?
Cut $1 trillion in his first year. Abolish Departments of HUD, Energy, Commerce, Interior and Education and the TSA. End foreign deployments of troops and foreign aid. Cut Federal employees by 10%. End Medicare and Social Security as Federal programs, except for veterans and current retirees move it to the states.
Then cut corporate tax to 15% and end lots of other taxes with the end goal of a 0% income tax.
So I'm not sure how much it can be considered a 'realistic' proposal to end the deficit :mellow:
Now you know why Paul supports pot legalization. He's been smoking some real good shit.
I'm absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who want to abolish the Departments of Energy and Commerce do not know what the Departments of Energy and Commerce do.
Patents and nuclear materials would be ideally handled by fifty different states, right?
Fun fact: Pantex, our sole nuclear bomb plant, is in Texas. RUH-ROH.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 26, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
Fun fact: Pantex, our sole nuclear bomb plant, is in Texas. RUH-ROH.
Actually, no. We still make bombs at Oak Ridge, and another facility that escapes me at the moment.
I think it's the only final assembly plant... :unsure:
We haven't made a new nuclear bomb since 1991, according to the Pantex site. They actually disassemble them now. But they could do more. :ph34r:
Do we really want more nukes in the hands of Texans? :bleeding:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 26, 2012, 03:37:09 PM
I think it's the only final assembly plant... :unsure:
We haven't made a new nuclear bomb since 1991, according to the Pantex site. They actually disassemble them now. But they could do more. :ph34r:
There's a lot of places involved in the warhead weaponry supply chain. :ph34r:
Quote from: Gups on February 23, 2012, 01:31:54 PM
Rasmussen has Obama ten up against Mitt and seven up against Sant,. AP yesterday was similar and Quinnipag showing small Obama leads (except against Newt)
Also decent leads in Virginia and Penn for Obama.
I suspect Gallup's poll was rogue
Rasmussen now has Obama only leading Romney by 2 points, a statistical tie. There is indeed tightening for some reason.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
It seems the Santorum implosion is beginning. They are running out of Not-Romneys though.
There is still one major not-Romney left. Though he's a black guy who lives in a white house...
Quote from: PDH on February 26, 2012, 02:26:10 PM
So Santorum states: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"
To be fair he compared American church-state separation with French. He's right. Compared with the absolute line drawn there the US does have a different sort of separation, in my opinion it's a better balance.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 26, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
I'm absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who want to abolish the Departments of Energy and Commerce do not know what the Departments of Energy and Commerce do.
Patents and nuclear materials would be ideally handled by fifty different states, right?
I am absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who insist that the only way to regulate patents and nuclear materials is through departments named "Commerce' and "Energy" do not know what US government departments are.
The US lacks a Department of Printing Currency, and yet prints currency. The US lacks a Department of Building Buildings, and yet builds buildings. Similarly, it could lack a Department of Commerce and still regulate patents, and a department of Energy and still regulate nuclear materials.
Fun fact: more of the existing US power plants were licensed before the DoE was created than were licensed after its creation.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 07:45:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 26, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
I'm absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who want to abolish the Departments of Energy and Commerce do not know what the Departments of Energy and Commerce do.
Patents and nuclear materials would be ideally handled by fifty different states, right?
I am absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who insist that the only way to regulate patents and nuclear materials is through departments named "Commerce' and "Energy" do not know what US government departments are.
The US lacks a Department of Printing Currency, and yet prints currency. The US lacks a Department of Building Buildings, and yet builds buildings. Similarly, it could lack a Department of Commerce and still regulate patents, and a department of Energy and still regulate nuclear materials.
Fun fact: more of the existing US power plants were licensed before the DoE was created than were licensed after its creation.
False. It was a terrible dark time of ignorance before the U.S. Department of Education was created in 1980. Since then, the 5,000-employee department has brought about huge national improvements in high school graduation rates and academic performance despite merely doubling the money spent per pupil (adjusted for inflation).
Yeah, you could easily just shuffle them back into a Department of the Interior. Might even save some money doing so.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 07:45:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 26, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
I'm absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who want to abolish the Departments of Energy and Commerce do not know what the Departments of Energy and Commerce do.
Patents and nuclear materials would be ideally handled by fifty different states, right?
I am absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who insist that the only way to regulate patents and nuclear materials is through departments named "Commerce' and "Energy" do not know what US government departments are.
The US lacks a Department of Printing Currency, and yet prints currency. The US lacks a Department of Building Buildings, and yet builds buildings. Similarly, it could lack a Department of Commerce and still regulate patents, and a department of Energy and still regulate nuclear materials.
Fun fact: more of the existing US power plants were licensed before the DoE was created than were licensed after its creation.
Does that fun fact have anything to do with DoE or is it mostly related to the rise of the anti-nuclear movement at the same time period?
Quote from: Fate on February 27, 2012, 09:48:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 07:45:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 26, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
I'm absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who want to abolish the Departments of Energy and Commerce do not know what the Departments of Energy and Commerce do.
Patents and nuclear materials would be ideally handled by fifty different states, right?
I am absolutely, 100% convinced that the people who insist that the only way to regulate patents and nuclear materials is through departments named "Commerce' and "Energy" do not know what US government departments are.
The US lacks a Department of Printing Currency, and yet prints currency. The US lacks a Department of Building Buildings, and yet builds buildings. Similarly, it could lack a Department of Commerce and still regulate patents, and a department of Energy and still regulate nuclear materials.
Fun fact: more of the existing US power plants were licensed before the DoE was created than were licensed after its creation.
Does that fun fact have anything to do with DoE or is it mostly related to the rise of the anti-nuclear movement at the same time period?
Grumbles didn't make any claim as to causation - he merely listed it as a "fun fact".
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
Grumbles didn't make any claim as to causation - he merely listed it as a "fun fact".
Here's a fun fact,
- While grumbler wasn't on the Kon-Tiki he was one of the original South American settlers of Easter Island.
Here's a claim to causation,
- Rather than deal with another grumbler strawman the civilisation of Rapa Nui preferred to go extinct.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:00:35 AM
Rather than deal with another grumbler strawman the civilisation of Rapa Nui preferred to go extinct.
:rolleyes:
The moai were made of stone.
Holy crap Hillary has aged.
Santorum, yesterday on ABC, about JFK's famous "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute" 1960 speech on religion and public policy--
QuoteTo say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American. . . . Now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.
Yes, he said "throw up".
That's just super.
:huh: Is Santorum running against John F. Kennedy?
Quote from: Jacob on February 27, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
:huh: Is Santorum running against John F. Kennedy?
And Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, and LBJ, and Ronald Reagan...
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
Grumbles didn't make any claim as to causation - he merely listed it as a "fun fact".
Indeed. I only put in a "fun fact" because Ide did so.
Quote from: Jacob on February 27, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
:huh: Is Santorum running against John F. Kennedy?
I think he's running against the 1960s, so kind of.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2012, 11:16:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 27, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
:huh: Is Santorum running against John F. Kennedy?
I think he's running against the 1960s, so kind of.
1964, to be specific.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
Santorum, yesterday on ABC, about JFK's famous "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute" 1960 speech on religion and public policy--
QuoteTo say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American. . . . Now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.
Yes, he said "throw up".
That's just super.
Santorum is approaching the Viking level of straw man construction. Didn't think we would see another like Viking in our lifetime. :worthy:
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
Grumbles didn't make any claim as to causation - he merely listed it as a "fun fact".
Indeed. I only put in a "fun fact" because Ide did so.
I'm not convinced either is very fun.
I think this article's a bit sneery but it has some brilliant quotes and pictures.
http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/
It's also important to focus on Super Tuesday. Michigan's must win for Mitt, for everyone else it's enough to do well enough. Some highlights:
QuoteIt illustrates a shift in momentum so pronounced that, unless Romney takes Michigan and fares strongly on Super Tuesday, his ascension to his party's nomination will be in serious jeopardy, as the calls for a late-entering white-knight candidate escalate—and odds of an up-for-grabs Republican convention rise. "Right now, I'd say they're one in five," says one of the GOP's grandest grandees. "If Romney doesn't put this thing away by Super Tuesday, I'd say they're closer to 50-50."
...
"Compared to 2008, all the candidates are way to the right of John McCain," says longtime conservative activist Jeff Bell. "The fact that Romney is running with basically the same views as then but is seen as too moderate tells you that the base has moved rightward and doesn't simply want a conservative candidate—it wants a very conservative one."
...
And make no mistake: A loss is what the GOP's political class now expects. "Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, 'We're gonna win, we're gonna beat Obama,' " says former Reagan strategist Ed Rollins. "Now even those who've endorsed Romney say, 'My God, what a fucking mess.' "
...
Nor were Romney's rehearsed turns on the hustings appreciably better. From Iowa through New Hampshire, his campaign events had been progressively pared back and whittled down. By the time he reached South Carolina, they had achieved a certain purity—the purity of the null set. The climactic moment in them came when Romney would recite (and offer attendant textual analysis that would make Stanley Fish beat his head against a wall) the lyrics of "America the Beautiful." Even staunch Romney allies were abashed by this sadly persistent, and persistently sad, rhetorical trope. "I have never seen anything more ridiculous or belittling," a prominent Romney fund-raiser says.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.nymag.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2Fheilemann120305_3_560.jpg&hash=7db1a5b8576aa2d1b473ba4e26063349b05f0909)
Newt Gingrich at a New Hampshire campaign stop.
(Photo: Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos/New York Magazine)
...
"Of all the candidates, he has had the biggest impact," says Steve Schmidt, McCain's 2008 chief strategist. "By making the case he made against Romney, Gingrich did a significant amount of damage to him, both in the primary and in the general, if Romney does become the nominee."
The damage Schmidt is talking about in the latter case revolves around independent voters. By pressing Romney on Bain and his tax returns, Gingrich helped create the context for his rival's errors. "The toughest thing in a campaign is when there's synergy between your opponents' attacks on the left and right," Schmidt explains. "The same criticisms of Romney being made by Democrats are being echoed by his Republican challengers. And when criticism becomes ecumenical, that really impacts independent voters."
And how. An NBC News–Wall Street Journal poll in late January found Romney's unfavorability rating among independents had risen twenty points, from 22 to 42 percent, over the previous two months. "It's not as though they have said Bain has disqualified him or that he can't be trusted because of his taxes, but this has created a gulf between him and the average voter," one of the pollsters behind the survey, Peter Hart, told the Washington Post. "Bain and the taxes just reinforce the sense that this person is in a different world."
...
With these few short sentences in what should have been a moment of triumph for him, Romney managed to send the wrong message to an array of factions. To independent voters, "I'm not concerned about the very poor" sounds callous. To conservative intellectuals and activists, talk about fixing the safety net—as opposed to pursuing policies that enable the poor to free themselves from government dependency—is rank apostasy. And to congressional Republicans, the comment reflected a glaring lack of familiarity with the party's anti-poverty positions. "Electeds were flabbergasted," says a veteran K Street player. "Even moderate Republican members, if they've been here for more than four months, get dipped in the empowerment agenda."
A week later, Romney attempted to repair part of the damage with his speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference—and promptly put his foot in it again. In an address in which he employed the word conservative or some variation of it 24 times, as if trying to prove he is a member of the tribe through sheer incantation, his use of the adverb severely to express the depth of his conviction raised eyebrows inside and outside the hall. "The most retarded thing I have ever heard a Republican candidate say" was the verdict of one strategist with ample experience in GOP presidential campaigns.
...
The launching pad for Santorum was the trio of states that held contests on February 7: Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. His sweep of all three was unexpected to everyone but him—Santorum is a confident man—and reflected a grievous miscalculation on the part of Team Romney, which only barely played in Colorado and ignored the other two. "The idiocy to do that with all of the resources they have; there's no limit to their money," Rollins says. "It's that kind of arrogance: 'We won Florida; it's over.' That was four years ago. That's not this time. This time it's trench warfare all the way, and somebody's gonna keep rising up, and it's now Santorum."
...
Santorum may be a different story, however—less erratic, less prone to light himself on fire, less saddled with XXXL baggage. "Santorum is a much more sympathetic character than Gingrich," says the Evangelical leader Richard Land. "If a guy has 57 percent negatives, you can carpet-bomb him with impunity. But if Romney comes out swinging for Santorum, people are going to get angry. It's a lot harder to demonize him than Gingrich."
If Santorum can weather the welter of attacks, his combination of governing and ideological bona fides might make him Romney's bête noire. "The one thing Romney had to avoid that's a mortal threat to him was an ideological contest with someone who has the credentials to be commander-in-chief," says Schmidt. "And Santorum, as a three-term member of Congress and two-term senator, clears that hurdle, especially running against a one-term governor. That's why the race is more wide open now than at any other point before—because Romney is dealing for the first time with a plausible nominee in the eyes of Republican voters, where it's absolutely impossible to get around his right flank."
...
In his TV ads as well as on the stump, Romney has been slapping the favorite-son card on the table like a drunk at a game of strip poker, and is leaning hard on the state GOP Establishment to help him win the hand. "Regardless of the polls that show Santorum with a lead, it's still Romney's to lose," says consultant and former state-party executive director Greg McNeilly. "He has massive organizational strength Santorum can't match." Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, agrees: "Romney has a list of endorsements as long as both your arms. He's raised far more money here than any other candidate, including Barack Obama. Santorum is a total cipher. He's an unknown. And he has not done anything here."[/b]
But the savviest political players in the state also allow that, as McNeilly puts it, "the race is in flux in a way that defies conventional wisdom," that anti-Establishment sentiments are running high in the state, and therefore Santorum might just pull off an upset. And while Eric Ferhnstrom, Romney's spokesman, insists the primary is not a must-win for his boss, others close to the candidate admit that losing, in the words of one of them, would be "absolutely, completely fucking horrible."
...
Not one of the president's presiding reelection gurus—David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Jim Messina—believes that, come November, their margin of victory will be as big as even the smallest of those numbers. All along, they have been operating from the assumption that the Republican base will be riled up and ready to turn out in droves on Election Day. That Richard Land is right when he asserts that, for all the lack of enthusiasm for the extant crop of candidates, no one should ever "underestimate the ability of President Obama to rally conservatives to vote against him." That, given the still fragile state of the nation's recovery, the high percentage of voters who continue to regard the country as on the wrong track, and the possibility that Iran or Europe might throw the world a nasty curveball in the months ahead, 2012 will be a closer-run election than 2008. That, in other words, it's still perfectly conceivable that Obama might lose this thing.
...
What that would mean for the GOP would differ wildly depending on which of the two current front-runners, along with the coalition that elevated him to the nomination, is blamed for the debacle. "If Romney is the nominee and he loses in November, I think we'll see a resurgence of the charismatic populist right," says Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and author of a biography of Barry Goldwater. "Not only will [the grassroots wing] say that Romney led Republicans down the road to defeat, but that the whole type of conservatism he represents is doomed."
Goldberg points out that this is what happened in 1976, when the party stuck with Ford over Reagan, was beaten by Carter, and went on to embrace the Gipper's brand of movement conservatism four years later. So who does Goldberg think might be ascendant in the aftermath of a Romney licking? "Sarah Palin," he replies. "She's an outsider, she has no Washington or Wall Street baggage, she's electric—and she's waiting, because if Romney doesn't win, she will be welcomed in."
But if it's Santorum who is the standard-bearer and then he suffers an epic loss, a different analogy will be apt: Goldwater in 1964. (And, given the degree of the challenges Santorum would face in attracting female voters, epic it might well be.) As Kearns Goodwin points out, the rejection of the Arizona senator's ideology and policies led the GOP to turn back in 1968 to Nixon, "a much more moderate figure, despite the incredible corruption of his time in office." For Republicans after 2012, a similar repudiation of the populist, culture-warrior coalition that is fueling Santorum's surge would open the door to the many talented party leaders—Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal—waiting in the wings for 2016, each offering the possibility of refashioning the GOP into a serious and forward-thinking enterprise.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 27, 2012, 11:27:09 AM
I'm not convinced either is very fun.
Well, you wouldn't be, would you? I can certainly live without your conviction, and suspect Ide can as well.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 11:17:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
Santorum, yesterday on ABC, about JFK's famous "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute" 1960 speech on religion and public policy--
QuoteTo say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American. . . . Now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.
Yes, he said "throw up".
That's just super.
Santorum is approaching the Viking level of straw man construction. Didn't think we would see another like Viking in our lifetime. :worthy:
Not only that, but he's getting dangerously close to losing the atheist vote :D
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 11:17:46 AM
Santorum is approaching the Viking level of straw man construction. Didn't think we would see another like Viking in our lifetime. :worthy:
What is wrong with you? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 12:50:30 PM
Not only that, but he's getting dangerously close to losing the atheist vote :D
On the contrary, he definitely has my vote in the primaries now. :menace:
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2012, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 12:50:30 PM
Not only that, but he's getting dangerously close to losing the atheist vote :D
On the contrary, he definitely has my vote in the primaries now. :menace:
My Ohio vote will be inconsequential either way, so I'm thinking about voting for Paul :ph34r:
Do it!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 27, 2012, 01:42:23 PM
Do it!
It would not be my craziest primary vote ever, believe it or not.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 01:56:22 PM
It would not be my craziest primary vote ever, believe it or not.
I believe it.
Quote from: Jacob on February 27, 2012, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 01:56:22 PM
It would not be my craziest primary vote ever, believe it or not.
I believe it.
Yeah although in the general I bet he's voted for himself.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 12:50:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2012, 11:17:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
Santorum, yesterday on ABC, about JFK's famous "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute" 1960 speech on religion and public policy--
QuoteTo say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American. . . . Now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.
Yes, he said "throw up".
That's just super.
Santorum is approaching the Viking level of straw man construction. Didn't think we would see another like Viking in our lifetime. :worthy:
Not only that, but he's getting dangerously close to losing the atheist vote :D
Do you really think you have to be an atheist to find that attitude rather alarming?
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2012, 02:03:04 PM
Do you really think you have to be an atheist to find that attitude rather alarming?
I don't know. I'm not alarmed. Should I be?
QuoteAsked by the AP reporter if he follows NASCAR, Romney responded, "Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners."
:lol:
A true Man of the People. :ccr
Quote from: Ideologue on February 27, 2012, 02:39:17 PM
QuoteAsked by the AP reporter if he follows NASCAR, Romney responded, "Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners."
:lol:
:wub:
What a collection of dumb shits. Anyone who could get multiple brain cells firing at the same time could run away with this thing.
Quote from: sbr on February 27, 2012, 03:08:13 PM
What a collection of dumb shits. Anyone who could get multiple brain cells firing at the same time could run away with this thing.
Most people with multiple brain cells steer clear of this sort of thing.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 27, 2012, 02:39:17 PM
QuoteAsked by the AP reporter if he follows NASCAR, Romney responded, "Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners."
:lol:
lol, he just don't get it
Quote from: Ideologue on February 27, 2012, 02:39:17 PM
QuoteAsked by the AP reporter if he follows NASCAR, Romney responded, "Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners."
:lol:
We really need a :facepalm: smiley. Or :romney:, same shit.
Quote from: sbr on February 27, 2012, 03:08:13 PM
What a collection of dumb shits. Anyone who could get multiple brain cells firing at the same time could run away with this thing.
What primary are you watching? Anyone who could get multiple brain cells firing is disqualified from the beginning. Hence the conundrum for GOP: they want moron candidates, but that results in getting candidates that are morons.
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2012, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 27, 2012, 03:08:13 PM
What a collection of dumb shits. Anyone who could get multiple brain cells firing at the same time could run away with this thing.
What primary are you watching? Anyone who could get multiple brain cells firing is disqualified from the beginning. Hence the conundrum for GOP: they want moron candidates, but that results in getting candidates that are morons.
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Don't you be talking bad about Ms. Nancy! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2012, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Don't you be talking bad about my Pelosi! :angry:
Pelosi Galore, Bond Babe.
Yes, that was from Dennis Miller.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2012, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Don't you be talking bad about my Pelosi! :angry:
Pelosi Galore, Bond Babe.
Yes, that was from Dennis Miller.
I changed it. -_-
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pelosi Galore, Bond Babe.
Yes, that was from Dennis Miller.
Oh, is he still alive?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 27, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pelosi Galore, Bond Babe.
Yes, that was from Dennis Miller.
Oh, is he still alive?
Still doing the conservative thing.
Sorta amazing how he went hard right after 9/11. Was always a bit centrist with a common sensical approach, but 9/11 really put the zap on his head. Still enjoyable, though.
No Bill Maher, but still enjoyable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:44:53 PM
Still doing the conservative thing.
Sorta amazing how he went hard right after 9/11. Was always a bit centrist with a common sensical approach, but 9/11 really put the zap on his head. Still enjoyable, though.
No Bill Maher, but still enjoyable.
If anything he was a bit on the left in the 80s. He certainly wasn't too fond of Ronnie Ray-gun.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:44:53 PM
Sorta amazing how he went hard right after 9/11. Was always a bit centrist with a common sensical approach, but 9/11 really put the zap on his head. Still enjoyable, though.
Yeah, I think his laid back approach was related to the relative safety of the US. When foreign assholes are suddenly attacking American soil (as opposed to blowing up Siegebreakers in Beirut), and a town that he lived and worked in for years, I think it changed his worldview a bit.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
If anything he was a bit on the left in the 80s. He certainly wasn't too fond of Ronnie Ray-gun.
A lot of the detente kids weren't.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
If anything he was a bit on the left in the 80s. He certainly wasn't too fond of Ronnie Ray-gun.
Never know. Maybe he was just in the closet about it to help his career.
So, for the unwashed foreigners here in Europe:
How likely is it that Santorum:
- becomes the Republican candidate?
- becomes High Priest President of the U.S.?
Is he just a nutjob, or a nutjob with serious popular backing?
Quote from: Syt on February 28, 2012, 01:04:13 AM
So, for the unwashed foreigners here in Europe:
How likely is it that Santorum:
- becomes the Republican candidate?
- becomes High Priest President of the U.S.?
Is he just a nutjob, or a nutjob with serious popular backing?
There
My prediction is that Santorum will make a strong showing but will not receive the Republican nomination. This will be appropriately scary for Americans whose heads are not firmly implanted in their assholes, because it will indicate that social conservatism of the truly theocratic variety has increased in popularity over the last few years. Santorum's politics are a politics of hate, which isn't necessarily distressing - what is distressing, however, is that such a large number of people just don't get it.
I think it will be a close-ish race between Obama and Romney, but Obama will get another term in the end.
I'd think it just means he isn't Romney.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Judging other people's competency in a field you don't actually understand is common failing.
the bane of modern democracy is the professional politican. It is not about lacking common sense, or common sense being enough to run the tehnical side of a ministry, for example. It is about this circle being more and more a detached aristocracy. An aristocracy with relatively easy entry requirements compared to past aristocracies, granted, but still.
I think you may be biased because all of your politicians are also Hungarians.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 02:58:08 AM
I think you may be biased because all of your politicians are also Hungarians.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 02:53:34 AM
the bane of modern democracy is the professional politican. It is not about lacking common sense, or common sense being enough to run the tehnical side of a ministry, for example. It is about this circle being more and more a detached aristocracy. An aristocracy with relatively easy entry requirements compared to past aristocracies, granted, but still.
I sort-of agree. I wouldn't mind loads of professional politicians but they're not even very good at their jobs.
The strange thing we have right now is that the leadership of all three parties are from incredibly similar backgrounds. But the Commons itself is as diverse as it's ever been and there's certainly not a majority of career politicians.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2012, 03:02:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 02:58:08 AM
I think you may be biased because all of your politicians are also Hungarians.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
It's away "congress", not the individual congressmen. Sort of like how someone might say "people are stupid", but not think they themselves are stupid despite being a person.
Quote from: Syt on February 28, 2012, 01:04:13 AM
So, for the unwashed foreigners here in Europe:
How likely is it that Santorum:
- becomes the Republican candidate?
- becomes High Priest President of the U.S.?
Is he just a nutjob, or a nutjob with serious popular backing?
He has backing, but not enough. Besides, his star is already fading. Also I think that Paul will throw his delegates behind Romney. Don't know what Gingrich will do. He doesn't always act rationally.
QuoteFormer Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has a small lead over rival Mitt Romney in the latest poll of likely Republican primary voters in Ohio.
Conducted by Quinnipiac University, the poll found Santorum leads the former Massachusetts governor 36 percent to 29 percent, though almost half of respondents said they could still change their mind ahead of the Buckeye state primary to be held in a little more than a week's time.
Mitt's folk here seem...disorganized. Haven't seen a single Romney sign. Seen plenty of the black Santorum ones though.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2012, 01:23:40 AM
My prediction is that Santorum will make a strong showing but will not receive the Republican nomination. This will be appropriately scary for Americans whose heads are not firmly implanted in their assholes, because it will indicate that social conservatism of the truly theocratic variety has increased in popularity over the last few years. Santorum's politics are a politics of hate, which isn't necessarily distressing - what is distressing, however, is that such a large number of people just don't get it.
How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?
QuoteI think it will be a close-ish race between Obama and Romney, but Obama will get another term in the end.
Obama wins by > 6%, regardless of who has the nomination.
The GOP will never be given such an easy win for another generation, but no....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqPRwq3QJsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=M5QGkOGZubQ
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 07:44:08 AM
Also I think that Paul will throw his delegates behind Romney. Don't know what Gingrich will do. He doesn't always act rationally.
I don't see either one giving their delegates away. Maybe Paul, if Romney promises a place for his son. But not Newt. Newt will tell his delegates to stay home, and work on a Lego space station. He's vindictive like that.
What's the deal with delegates - are they obliged to do whatever the guy they are pledged to tells them? I always thought they could do what they wanted once their guy dropped out
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2012, 04:40:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2012, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Don't you be talking bad about my Pelosi! :angry:
Pelosi Galore, Bond Babe.
Yes, that was from Dennis Miller.
I changed it. -_-
Ohhhh so it's okay when you do it? :D
Fucking gas prices causing the '08 crash.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 28, 2012, 09:48:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2012, 04:40:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2012, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
This is the end result in believing that government doesn't require any special skills. That all problems can be solved through "common sense", folk wisdom, and gut instinct.
Given the job career politicians have done, it's not hard to see why people start out with that belief.
Don't you be talking bad about my Pelosi! :angry:
Pelosi Galore, Bond Babe.
Yes, that was from Dennis Miller.
I changed it. -_-
Ohhhh so it's okay when you do it? :D
He was simply too quick. If you notice I don't have an edit line. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:04:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 07:44:08 AM
Also I think that Paul will throw his delegates behind Romney. Don't know what Gingrich will do. He doesn't always act rationally.
I don't see either one giving their delegates away. Maybe Paul, if Romney promises a place for his son. But not Newt. Newt will tell his delegates to stay home, and work on a Lego space station. He's vindictive like that.
The Lego Space Station would probably be more constructive. The convention could just turn into an unpleasant brawl over social conservatism versus fiscal conservatism with two candidates who really stand for neither.
Before Dan Savage there was Bob Kerrey. Apparently after working with him in the Senate he said that 'Santorum is Latin for asshole' :lol:
Also I can see why Romney doesn't give press conferences very often. He was asked if he thought that stories of his wealth hurt his campaign. His response was 'Yes. Next question.'
Romney was flailing like a man lost in Michigan. I was embarrassed on his behalf.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:03:06 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2012, 01:23:40 AM
My prediction is that Santorum will make a strong showing but will not receive the Republican nomination. This will be appropriately scary for Americans whose heads are not firmly implanted in their assholes, because it will indicate that social conservatism of the truly theocratic variety has increased in popularity over the last few years. Santorum's politics are a politics of hate, which isn't necessarily distressing - what is distressing, however, is that such a large number of people just don't get it.
How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?
QuoteI think it will be a close-ish race between Obama and Romney, but Obama will get another term in the end.
Obama wins by > 6%, regardless of who has the nomination.
The GOP will never be given such an easy win for another generation, but no....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqPRwq3QJsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=M5QGkOGZubQ
Unless it comes out that the Pres is laying lumber to his intern or something, The Obamanation will crush any GOP challenger. GOP will lose worse than 2008 (365-173).
I think it will be closer than 2008 but Romney keeps stepping in shit. Really, it's okay that you don't watch NASCAR, but don't tell us that you have good friends who own NASCAR teams in an effort to relate to the common guy. When asked what kind of car you drive, don't mention that your wife drives multiple Cadillacs. Keep that stuff on the down low. Who the hell is advising this guy?
Quote from: Fate on February 28, 2012, 11:29:03 AM
When asked what kind of car you drive, don't mention that your wife drives multiple Cadillacs. Keep that stuff on the down low. Who the hell is advising this guy?
They showed footage of him in 2008 over the weekend, where he had mentioned the whole Cadillac thing once before. At a Ford factory.
Guy's just not plugged in.
I voted....for the Paul. :ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:04:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 07:44:08 AM
Also I think that Paul will throw his delegates behind Romney. Don't know what Gingrich will do. He doesn't always act rationally.
I don't see either one giving their delegates away. Maybe Paul, if Romney promises a place for his son. But not Newt. Newt will tell his delegates to stay home, and work on a Lego space station. He's vindictive like that.
I think Paul is interested in platform to preach his bat shit craziness. A VP spot would be perfect for that. I think Romney will want someone on the ticket who someone is enthusiastic about. Even if it is pot heads and assorted militia members. I think they will make a deal, they may have already made one. Paul would probably like some job like Secretary of the Treasury, but I don't think Romney is that desperate. VP has high visibility but low power. God only knows what Newt will do. He very well may tell his delegates to stay home playing with Legos.
I think it would be Rand Paul not Ron who'd go for VP. Having him on the ticket with Romney would make McCain-Palin look like Reagan-Bush.
Quote from: Gups on February 28, 2012, 08:15:49 AM
What's the deal with delegates - are they obliged to do whatever the guy they are pledged to tells them? I always thought they could do what they wanted once their guy dropped out
Good question. I would think that if some hand-me-down delegate had ever revolted and voted his conscience it would have shown up on my news radar, which it hasn't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:03:06 AM
How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?
Well, typically those kinds of guys just get largely ignored, or diverse sets of people come out against them - you know, kind of like people do regarding the Westboro Baptist shitfaces. I don't necessarily mind a person being hateful; I DO mind a boatload of people going "you know, there's something to that guy's arguments!"
I'm still hoping nobody wins the first ballot. :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 10:26:52 AM
Also I can see why Romney doesn't give press conferences very often. He was asked if he thought that stories of his wealth hurt his campaign. His response was 'Yes. Next question.'
You can almost hear the whirring as the Romney 9000 reads its IBM punchcards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 02:28:36 PM
Good question. I would think that if some hand-me-down delegate had ever revolted and voted his conscience it would have shown up on my news radar, which it hasn't.
I think it varies state by state, so presumably the rules are set by the state GOP? I know at least some require pledged delegates to vote that way for three rounds of a convention and then they're free to vote their conscience.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 02:09:56 PM
I think it would be Rand Paul not Ron who'd go for VP. Having him on the ticket with Romney would make McCain-Palin look like Reagan-Bush.
Maybe, Rand Paul is just starting out. This very well may be Ron's last run. Rand Paul can run for President much later. Ron strikes me as a prophet more then anything else. He wants to get the message out, which is why he's run for President since the 1980's. He doesn't actually think he'll be President, and may not even want it. The President can't do all the things he wants to do. He wants to make his views mainstream. Only then can the changes he wants really happen. And I think he's succeeding.
Rand Paul may very well be groomed for a run for the Presidency, but not now. Rand Paul is the end game. He's the one who will eventually do all the things daddy has been talking about.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2012, 02:30:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:03:06 AM
How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?
Well, typically those kinds of guys just get largely ignored, or diverse sets of people come out against them - you know, kind of like people do regarding the Westboro Baptist shitfaces. I don't necessarily mind a person being hateful; I DO mind a boatload of people going "you know, there's something to that guy's arguments!"
Most of the politics of hate are more subtle then the Westboro types. They aren't even in the politics of hate. They are just hate. Not much politics. "Obama is a welfare thug", and "Obama is the foodstamp President", is the politics of hate.
I would think the basic stupidity behind Santorum stating that Kennedy's point was about removing the religious from public life when in fact Kennedy's point was almost exactly the opposite would be somewhat distressing, if nothing else.
It does illustrate rather nicely just how radicalized the religious right has become. By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong. They truly believe that they are under attack because there is resistance to them insisting on more power and control. Not getting what you want is not the same as being attacked.
I don't know if anyone should be alarmed, but I do find the Santorum religious nutjobs alarming in that they appear to be a significant power in their party. Kind of like the rights version of the Michael Moore/MoveOn crazies. Not alarming in and of themselves, but alarming that they have as much power over their party as they do...
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2012, 02:30:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:03:06 AM
How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?
Well, typically those kinds of guys just get largely ignored, or diverse sets of people come out against them - you know, kind of like people do regarding the Westboro Baptist shitfaces. I don't necessarily mind a person being hateful; I DO mind a boatload of people going "you know, there's something to that guy's arguments!"
Indeed. Santorum is not alarming - stupid religious fundies who think freedom of religion means everyone is free to practice their particular religion are hardly unusual enough to warrant notice, really. What is alarming is when they become actual serious contenders for public office where they get to make decisions that actually have an impact on other people.
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PMI don't know if anyone should be alarmed, but I do find the Santorum religious nutjobs alarming in that they appear to be a significant power in their party. Kind of like the rights version of the Michael Moore/MoveOn crazies. Not alarming in and of themselves, but alarming that they have as much power over their party as they do...
How much power does Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd have in the Democratic party? Are there any purity tests originating from that potential Democratic candidates have to pass that originate from that crowd?
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PM
By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong. They truly believe that they are under attack because there is resistance to them insisting on more power and control. Not getting what you want is not the same as being attacked.
:yeahright:
It's pretty much been a rearguard action since before the Moral Majority first appeared on the scene. Politicians didn't talk about the religious stuff as much in the 60s and 70s because it was taken for granted.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
How much power does Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd have in the Democratic party? Are there any purity tests originating from that potential Democratic candidates have to pass that originate from that crowd?
You mean, kinda like where you stand on
Roe v Wade for the Republicans?
Yes, you have to swear--actually, affirm--that you want to seize all guns. From everybody. That's about as close as it gets.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 03:32:42 PM
You have to swear--actually, affirm
:lol:
Nice touch.
You also have to apologize for America.
lulz, John Boehner just blamed gas prices on the President. And wants to know why we don't have an energy policy.
Oh, that's just rich.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2012, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PM
By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong. They truly believe that they are under attack because there is resistance to them insisting on more power and control. Not getting what you want is not the same as being attacked.
:yeahright:
It's pretty much been a rearguard action since before the Moral Majority first appeared on the scene. Politicians didn't talk about the religious stuff as much in the 60s and 70s because it was taken for granted.
I actually agree. Social morality is constantly getting more liberal, and has been for multiple decades. Even though in the last three decades, Republicans dominated the politics, they still couldn't halt the liberalizing advance. The social conservatives radicalized into a reactionary rebellion precisely because they are on the losing end of the culture war.
My prediction, Christie and Palin duke it out in a brokered convention
I think Rubio's got the best shot in a brokered convention. Assuming he wants it of course.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PMI don't know if anyone should be alarmed, but I do find the Santorum religious nutjobs alarming in that they appear to be a significant power in their party. Kind of like the rights version of the Michael Moore/MoveOn crazies. Not alarming in and of themselves, but alarming that they have as much power over their party as they do...
How much power does Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd have in the Democratic party? Are there any purity tests originating from that potential Democratic candidates have to pass that originate from that crowd?
They don't appear to have much power anymore, although an argument can be made that the power they had resulted in the Dems totally over-playing their hand when Obama got elected.
Maybe that is the deal...
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:17:48 PMThey don't appear to have much power anymore, although an argument can be made that the power they had resulted in the Dems totally over-playing their hand when Obama got elected.
Maybe that is the deal...
I guess I don't follow US politics that closely so this may be a silly question... how did the Democrats overplay their hand after Obama's election?
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:17:48 PMThey don't appear to have much power anymore, although an argument can be made that the power they had resulted in the Dems totally over-playing their hand when Obama got elected.
Maybe that is the deal...
I guess I don't follow US politics that closely so this may be a silly question... how did the Democrats overplay their hand after Obama's election?
IMO they used his election and the TARP crisis to try to shove as much crap and spend bullshit through under the guise of "stimulus" they could get away with, which caused the Blue Dogs to balk, and let the Republicans scupper anything and everything they tried under the guise of anti-crazyPelosi efforts. And since the Dems pretty much fucked Obama over (meaning the Congressional Dems) and all but told him "Nice job, now be a good boy and smile and wave while we get things done...", Obama ended up looking like a tool as well, which further let the nutbar Republicans play up the out of control spending, no leadership angle.
These days those Moveon nuts are pretty much irrelevant - maybe that kind of crazy bullshit only works when the other party is in power. Maybe if the Republicans got back into power, they would also marginalize their nutbars?
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:34:27 PM
These days those Moveon nuts are pretty much irrelevant - maybe that kind of crazy bullshit only works when the other party is in power. Maybe if the Republicans got back into power, they would also marginalize their nutbars?
Has that worked in the House? Or during 2002-06?
I do think that if McCain had won in '08, the Democratic primary this year would have been filled with nutjobs just like the Republican primary has been. Would they have gained any traction (as the Republican nutjobs ahved seemed to)? Maybe not, but I think we would have all seen a disconcerting amount of crazy.
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PM
By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong.
I don't understand this. In our grandparents generation, they would actually teach bible lessons in schools--prayers weren't even controversial. They got an amendment through to ban alcohol sales, largely on religious grounds. Corporal punishment in school was the norm. Birth control--and of course abortion--was illegal. Pornography was illegal. Adultery was illegal.
Quote from: Fate on February 28, 2012, 11:29:03 AM
I think it will be closer than 2008 but Romney keeps stepping in shit. Really, it's okay that you don't watch NASCAR, but don't tell us that you have good friends who own NASCAR teams in an effort to relate to the common guy. When asked what kind of car you drive, don't mention that your wife drives multiple Cadillacs. Keep that stuff on the down low. Who the hell is advising this guy?
He should just give a speech were he talks about how incredibly wealthy he is and his lifestyle, etc and conclude by saying, "if you think this means I shouldn't be president vote for the other multimillionaire."
Maybe it could get out of the way the crazes he starts on a weekly basis by some comment that reflects he has a lot of money.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 28, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PM
By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong.
I don't understand this. In our grandparents generation, they would actually teach bible lessons in schools--prayers weren't even controversial. They got an amendment through to ban alcohol sales, largely on religious grounds. Corporal punishment in school was the norm. Birth control--and of course abortion--was illegal. Pornography was illegal. Adultery was illegal.
You don't have to go that far back.
When I was going to school we started with the Lord's prayer. Stores were closed on Sundays. Christmas plays at school had a telling of the birth of Christ.
Berkut might be right that the religious right has more overt political power than they ever have, however in terms of the wider culture it has become more and mroe secular. That is what explains their feeling of defensiveness.
I agree.
It's interesting, in that abortion has been restricted more in more states over the past decade than any time since Roe v Wade and, of course, there a now many states with constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage (though other states have legalised it). But the cultural, symbolic stuff seems to matter more.
It's the reverse of the situation here. We have laws requiring religious groups that deal with adoption to treat gay couples equally. There's been no new restrictions on abortion (though we've got stricter laws than the US already) and we'll get gay marriage from a Conservative-led government. Despite all that, perhaps because of a state church, we still have prayers in school, lots of state funded faith schools, nativity plays at public schools that are about the Nativity and restricted Sunday opening hours (though there's been some liberalisation on that). But they've all been sort-of denuded of religious content and importance. The Churches are trying to push back on some of the politics but it's not really succeeding.
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:34:27 PMIMO they used his election and the TARP crisis to try to shove as much crap and spend bullshit through under the guise of "stimulus" they could get away with, which caused the Blue Dogs to balk, and let the Republicans scupper anything and everything they tried under the guise of anti-crazyPelosi efforts. And since the Dems pretty much fucked Obama over (meaning the Congressional Dems) and all but told him "Nice job, now be a good boy and smile and wave while we get things done...", Obama ended up looking like a tool as well, which further let the nutbar Republicans play up the out of control spending, no leadership angle.
Ah okay. That may very well be true; I didn't follow that close enough to have much to say on that.
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PMI don't know if anyone should be alarmed, but I do find the Santorum religious nutjobs alarming in that they appear to be a significant power in their party. Kind of like the rights version of the Michael Moore/MoveOn crazies. Not alarming in and of themselves, but alarming that they have as much power over their party as they do...
How much power does Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd have in the Democratic party? Are there any purity tests originating from that potential Democratic candidates have to pass that originate from that crowd?
They don't appear to have much power anymore, although an argument can be made that the power they had resulted in the Dems totally over-playing their hand when Obama got elected.
Maybe that is the deal...
Here's an idea: Maybe they never had much power to begin with. Michael Moore is a guy who makes films. Moveon.org is a bunch of people on the internet. What exactly have they accomplished? Not much as far as I can tell. Why have they not accomplished much? Cause they didn't have any real power to begin with. The evol Michael Moore and the insidious moveon.org is invoked when Conservatives want to say "they do it too!".
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:34:27 PM
IMO they used his election and the TARP crisis to try to shove as much crap and spend bullshit through under the guise of "stimulus" they could get away with, which caused the Blue Dogs to balk, and let the Republicans scupper anything and everything they tried under the guise of anti-crazyPelosi efforts. And since the Dems pretty much fucked Obama over (meaning the Congressional Dems) and all but told him "Nice job, now be a good boy and smile and wave while we get things done...", Obama ended up looking like a tool as well, which further let the nutbar Republicans play up the out of control spending, no leadership angle.
These days those Moveon nuts are pretty much irrelevant - maybe that kind of crazy bullshit only works when the other party is in power. Maybe if the Republicans got back into power, they would also marginalize their nutbars?
OMG the government spent money! That's not exactly extraordinary.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 28, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:00:51 PM
By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong.
I don't understand this. In our grandparents generation, they would actually teach bible lessons in schools--prayers weren't even controversial. They got an amendment through to ban alcohol sales, largely on religious grounds. Corporal punishment in school was the norm. Birth control--and of course abortion--was illegal. Pornography was illegal. Adultery was illegal.
not quite so simple:
QuoteThe public school is supported by the taxes which each citizen, regardless of his religion or his lack of it, is compelled to pay. The school, like the government, is simply a civil institution. It is secular, and not religious, in its purposes. The truths of the Bible are the truths of religion, which do not come within the province of the public school. . . . No one denies that they should be taught to the youth of the State. The constitution and the law do not interfere with such teaching, but they do banish theological polemics from the schools and the school districts. This is done not from any hostility to religion, but because it is no part of the duty of the State to teach religion . . ."
People ex rel. Ring v. Board of Education, 245 Ill. 334, 349, 92 N.E. 251, 256
(1910).
What happened after our grandparents generation is that the Warren Court was willing to use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose these kinds of rulings on a nationwide basis on state-run school systems.
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 03:02:55 PMstupid religious fundies who think freedom of religion means everyone is free to practice their particular religion
What else does it mean?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2012, 06:47:58 PM
What happened after our grandparents generation is that the Warren Court was willing to use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose these kinds of rulings on a nationwide basis on state-run school systems.
The Warren Court couldn't have existed in our grandparents generation because the political world wouldn't have created (or tolerated) it.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 28, 2012, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2012, 06:47:58 PM
What happened after our grandparents generation is that the Warren Court was willing to use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose these kinds of rulings on a nationwide basis on state-run school systems.
The Warren Court couldn't have existed in our grandparents generation because the political world wouldn't have created (or tolerated) it.
It existed in my grandparents world. :huh: How old are you?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 28, 2012, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2012, 06:47:58 PM
What happened after our grandparents generation is that the Warren Court was willing to use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose these kinds of rulings on a nationwide basis on state-run school systems.
The Warren Court couldn't have existed in our grandparents generation because the political world wouldn't have created (or tolerated) it.
It existed in my grandparents world. :huh: How old are you?
:hmm: I think we discovered grumbler's sock puppet.
When I was growing up I was always confused about what was on a Chief Justice Burger. I would say the term made me hungry, but if the news was on we were already eating dinner.
And wasn't the Warren Court in the late 50's to late 60's? My grandparents were already old then and I barely missed seeing it.
Romney has won Arizona. Michigan too close to call.
Arizona called for Romney.
Michigan too close to call but he's ahead in the count so far. :)
Santorum's daughter looks like her father in drag.
Best Romney speech I've seen so far (though his wife fumbled a bit 'let's congratulate the famous chair of Oakland County who you....all love so much...what's thei...BROOKS! That's right' :lol:). He's managing to get a clear message across for once. But I think Santorum's speech was also strong.
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 28, 2012, 04:17:48 PMThey don't appear to have much power anymore, although an argument can be made that the power they had resulted in the Dems totally over-playing their hand when Obama got elected.
Maybe that is the deal...
I guess I don't follow US politics that closely so this may be a silly question... how did the Democrats overplay their hand after Obama's election?
IMO they used his election and the TARP crisis to try to shove as much crap and spend bullshit through under the guise of "stimulus" they could get away with, which caused the Blue Dogs to balk, and let the Republicans scupper anything and everything they tried under the guise of anti-crazyPelosi efforts. And since the Dems pretty much fucked Obama over (meaning the Congressional Dems) and all but told him "Nice job, now be a good boy and smile and wave while we get things done...", Obama ended up looking like a tool as well, which further let the nutbar Republicans play up the out of control spending, no leadership angle.
These days those Moveon nuts are pretty much irrelevant - maybe that kind of crazy bullshit only works when the other party is in power. Maybe if the Republicans got back into power, they would also marginalize their nutbars?
So I should give money to MoveOn to spite Berkut? :hmm:
:P
I do get emails from them. Something to do with some petition I signed. I don't mind 'em, I just don't read most of 'em, but they want to help elect some dude that's one of their vanguard to some congressional office.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 28, 2012, 11:05:04 PM
So I should give money to MoveOn to spite Berkut? :hmm:
You should give money to MoveOn to spite Ideologue.
:(
Romney wins in Michigan.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 02:09:56 PM
I think it would be Rand Paul not Ron who'd go for VP. Having him on the ticket with Romney would make McCain-Palin look like Reagan-Bush.
Maybe, Rand Paul is just starting out. This very well may be Ron's last run. Rand Paul can run for President much later. Ron strikes me as a prophet more then anything else. He wants to get the message out, which is why he's run for President since the 1980's. He doesn't actually think he'll be President, and may not even want it. The President can't do all the things he wants to do. He wants to make his views mainstream. Only then can the changes he wants really happen. And I think he's succeeding.
Rand Paul may very well be groomed for a run for the Presidency, but not now. Rand Paul is the end game. He's the one who will eventually do all the things daddy has been talking about.
Ron Paul is Mohammed, Rand Paul is Abu Bakr?
I am glad the candidate whose religion is the least wacky won. I am terrified that that was the Mormon candidate.
Romeytron is taking us to Kobol to meet Elohim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 10:43:33 PM
But I think Santorum's speech was also strong.
I dunno, man. Give entitlement programs back to the states? States can't afford to pave their own roads anymore.
And here I thought Republicans didn't want to kill grandparents.
lol, "a free society from the bottom up".
Gee, Rick. All these details of how we defeated the Brits. DONT THANK THE FRENCH OR ANYTHING.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 29, 2012, 12:23:57 AM
Romeytron is taking us to Kobol to meet Elohim.
The Celestial Kingdom is where it's at. :w00t:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 12:26:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 10:43:33 PM
But I think Santorum's speech was also strong.
I dunno, man. Give entitlement programs back to the states? States can't afford to pave their own roads anymore.
And here I thought Republicans didn't want to kill grandparents.
lol, "a free society from the bottom up".
Oh tell me about it! Missouri Department of transportation has thrown up its hands and said it just can't maintain the roads it has. We passed an amendment to the constitution about 17 years ago that reads that the state can't raise taxes except by statewide referendum. The result is you simply can't raise taxes in this state, and candidates run on reducing taxes every so often cause it's an easy vote getter. Shit is starting to hit the fan because the state isn't able to maintain I-70, the main highway from KC to St.Louis. The chamber of commerce has proposed a plan to make it a toll road, which they feel is the most equitable way of solving the problem since other people will be paying for it. Of course that's mean all those truckers who use the highway will avoid it in the future and take windy little roads going at 70 miles per hour hopped up on speed so they'll still make deadline. But hey, that really cuts spending.
Incidentally, Berkut would like it here, Missouri state employees are the worst payed in the country. There have been several lay offs in the last decade, and there have been cases where the state simply didn't pay people what they were contracted to pay.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Incidentally, Berkut would like it here, Missouri state employees are the worst payed in the country. There have been several lay offs in the last decade, and there have been cases where the state simply didn't pay people what they were contracted to pay.
Sounds like Lil' Gub'mint werks!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 12:27:44 AM
Gee, Rick. All these details of how we defeated the Brits. DONT THANK THE FRENCH OR ANYTHING.
Lol I liked it when he defended the crusades.
Next he'll take a stand on the investiture controversy.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 29, 2012, 12:50:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 12:27:44 AM
Gee, Rick. All these details of how we defeated the Brits. DONT THANK THE FRENCH OR ANYTHING.
Lol I liked it when he defended the crusades.
Next he'll take a stand on the investiture controversy.
:lol:
Heinrich IV = Obama!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 29, 2012, 01:06:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 29, 2012, 12:50:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 12:27:44 AM
Gee, Rick. All these details of how we defeated the Brits. DONT THANK THE FRENCH OR ANYTHING.
Lol I liked it when he defended the crusades.
Next he'll take a stand on the investiture controversy.
:lol:
Heinrich IV = Obama!
:D
It was in SC too. I wish I'd been there. I'd have shouted "WHAT ABOUT THE FOURTH CRUSADE?"
It'd either trip him up, make him backpedal, or maybe get him excommunicated.
About 10% of voters in the Michigan primary were Democrats. Over half of them voted for Santorum.
Santorum tied Romney among Independents.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/4cf2569f935943bab187fc27dd6a9444/MI--Michigan-Election-Crossovers/
Quote from: Ideologue on February 29, 2012, 12:23:57 AM
Romeytron is taking us to Kobol to meet Elohim.
Mixing metaphors...
Adama took us to Kobol to find the Temple of Athena
Romneytron is taking us to Kolob to meet Elohim
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 12:43:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Incidentally, Berkut would like it here, Missouri state employees are the worst payed in the country. There have been several lay offs in the last decade, and there have been cases where the state simply didn't pay people what they were contracted to pay.
Sounds like Lil' Gub'mint werks!
The Republican running for governor was touting his degree in economics. Unfortunately he omitted the word "Home" in front of it. True story.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 29, 2012, 12:50:06 AM
Lol I liked it when he defended the crusades.
Next he'll take a stand on the investiture controversy.
He could benefit from a good medieval education. His grammar is OK, logic and rhetoric need work.
Assuming his astronomy is pre-Copernican, he should have a head start on the quadrivium.
Quote from: Kleves on February 29, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Romney wins in Michigan.
Given Romney's past response to success that means that by the end of today there should be another awful gaffe for everyone to ponder :(
I liked this blog from the Spectator on Mitt:
QuoteMitt Romney: The Man From Nowhere
In as much as it is possible to feel sympathy for a man seeking the American presidency while possessing a $250m fortune, Mitt Romney is an unusually pitiful figure. He may yet win the Michigan primary tonight and he remains the most probable eventual nominee but there is a sense, right now anyway, in which whatever happens next Romney will leave Michigan a diminished figure.
Whatever happens tonight he will retain a hefty lead in the delegate count (and he will have won Arizona too) but Michigan, no matter how rightly-sized its trees may be, has hurt Romney. It's no way to treat a man who calls the Wolverine state his home. But is it really his home? Where is he from? What is his hinterland? Answer these questions - or explain why Romney cannot answer them - and you begin to appreciate, I think, why Romney hasn't yet knocked-out his impossible rivals.
Mitt Romney evidently wants to be liked. Perhaps too much. But his attempts to empathise with "ordinary folks" are barely more successful than were John Kerry's. If you doubt this, consider Mitt's experience of hunting "varmints" mostly. You see what he's trying to do, but it just doesn't quite work. There's a goofy quality to Romney's attempts to empathise with "real folks" too. He never strikes the right tone; he's always trying too hard.
Trapped by the conservative movement's anti-elitism, Romney cannot be who he really is either. His father was a governor and his mother ran for the US Senate and Romney's own career, replete with compromise and trimming and fudge and slipperiness though it is, is a witness list for a prosecution case putting the old elites on trial. This might not have mattered quite so much 20 years ago. But the Great Crash of 2008 has made a liability of Romney's wealth. Here again, an old strength has rusted. In equal measure, the Man from Bain is a product of Wall Street excellence and excess. Neither is fashionable right now.
That helps explain why he has struggled to put Rick Santorum away. Santorum is not a poor man either but in an era when voting is often an expression of one's own identity he speaks to a type of America - blue-collar, obsessed with culture - that's forever beyond Mitt Romney's reach. (Some of it is beyond Barack Obama's grasp too.) Romney is a problem-solver and a technocrat; neither is fashionable right now. At least, neither is fashionable in this Republican primary.
John McCain was mocked for forgetting how many houses he owned but no-one ever doubted his cultural background. You could disagree with McCain on policy (to the extent McCain was ever really interested in policy) but his service history was essentially unimpeachable. It formed McCain and gave voters a story they could believe in. That story wasn't necessarily wholly relevant to life in the Oval Office but, by god, at least it was real. You got an idea of McCain as a man.
You dont get that with Romney. Worse still for Romney, he cannot copper-bottom his candidacy with culture. This is not just a question of money or class but, unavoidably, one of religion.
For understandable reasons he is keen to avoid making his candidacy a referendum on Mormonism. But he cannot talk about who he is without talking about Mormonism. And talking about Mormonism makes his candidacy some kind of referendum on Mormonism. So Romney is doomed to be the Man from Nowhere, a candidate without bottom who is, and can only be, defined by his record in office and the wealth he accumulated at Bain. In some elections this might be enough; it may not be on this occasion.
One example: during a discussion on immigration in one of the Florida debates, Romney reminded viewers that his father had been born in Mexico. Interesting! His family was driven out of Mexico by the 1912 revolution. They lost most of what they'd built in Mexico and had to start again north of the Rio Grande. and they made a great success of themselves. Poor Romney can't make a big deal of his own family's unusual, in some ways splendid, story since the Romneys were only in Mexico because they'd been driven out of the United States in 1882 after Mormon polygamy was outlawed. Mitt's great-grandfather fled to Mexico to begin again with his three wives and 12 children. Romney cannot emphasise the uplifting part of his family story without also acknowledging its darker aspect. Romney's family held fast to their beliefs but Romney cannot make a virtue of this either. Similarly, he cannot or will not talk about his experiences as a lay Bishop because this too opens the (possibly unfair) "Mormon thing".
It leaves him as a candidate without a cultural hinterland seeking to lead a party for whom culture - and attitude - is more satisfying than policy or plausibility.
Is Romney from Utah? Massachusetts? Michigan? Even California? A little bit of each and thus nowhere at all. The contrast with another candidate with few fixed places to call home is useful. Obama's classless, geographically-diffused background proved advantageous. It offered a measure of reassurance: this was not a ghetto axe-grinder. No Al Sharpton, he. Obama's cosmopolitan background - Kenya, Indonesia, Kansas, Hawaii, New York City, Harvard, Chicago - may have disturbed some voters but it promised freshness and glamour to many others. If Romney is tainted by his insider, elite status, Obama was a peerless outsider, ready to begin a new chapter in the great American story.
(Since Nixon almost every President has made a virtue of "outsider" status. The only exceptions: the two Bushes but even Young George cloaked his patrician heritage in Texas swagger. Even his propensity for malapropism was spun as evidence of some brand of folksy authenticity. And besides, he was up against Al Gore.)
I digress. Obama has been a politician onto whom Americans of all colours and beliefs could project their hopes (and, yes, sometimes their fears too). Many successful politicians have this chameleon-like quality (think of Tony Blair) but few have beaten Obama in this respect. Mitt Romney cannot. Obama has the great good fortune of being a politician whom many voters want to like even if, upon closer inspection, they are not always sure they really do like him.
The very things that make Romney a plausible candidate - his executive experience, his evident (or at least relative) command of policy, his flexibility, his own successes - are also some of the factors that make it difficult for Romney to persuade voters he's the real thing. He's unavoidably one of the elite at a time when America's financial and political elites carry a whiff of failure. Worse than mere failure actually, since the elites retain a sense of entitlement too. This is a poor time to be part of the political establishment or the financial super-class; it's a rotten time to be part of both.
If all this is the case and Romney still actually wins the nomination then, in some ways, he will have pulled off one hell of a trick. The Republican party in its present mood is not built to welcome the likes of Mitt Romney. All his advantages - save perhaps financial muscle - have been compromised and yet he remains the favourite. Doubtless this owes much to his impossibly implausible opponents but its own small way it will be an achievement if the Man from Nowhere actually prevails.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 29, 2012, 12:11:38 AM
Ron Paul is Mohammed, Rand Paul is Abu Bakr?
Is one allowed to make analogies about Mohammed and the first 4 caliphs?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 12:27:44 AM
Gee, Rick. All these details of how we defeated the Brits. DONT THANK THE FRENCH OR ANYTHING.
Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on February 29, 2012, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 29, 2012, 12:11:38 AM
Ron Paul is Mohammed, Rand Paul is Abu Bakr?
Is one allowed to make analogies about Mohammed and the first 4 caliphs?
Yes, unless you're Shi'a.
I'm Shiite out of luck. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 29, 2012, 10:15:44 AM
Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people. :hmm:
I know. It just doesn't make any sense. :frog:
Quote from: Valmy on February 29, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 29, 2012, 10:15:44 AM
Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people. :hmm:
I know. It just doesn't make any sense. :frog:
I know; maybe we should box up the Statue of Liberty and send her back, with her lamp replaced with a fistful of Freedom Fries(tm).
Quote from: Valmy on February 29, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 29, 2012, 10:15:44 AM
Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people. :hmm:
I know. It just doesn't make any sense. :frog:
There's been a lot of attitude between our two countries in the last century or so.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-XB3EVS3G6gI%2FTyovpsC0l7I%2FAAAAAAAAA0Q%2FwwFqicWUg1Q%2Fs1600%2FbarryGoldwater.jpgL&hash=eef0e57d5d177a3594181ac87777c9c4b61440cc)
Didn't him and Bob Dole worry about the state of the Republican Party (in the 90s) because suddenly they were on the liberal wing?
One thing I've been thinking about in terms of the GOP is this entire Nordquist pledge insanity.
On the face of it, the basic idea is simply ridiculous - a politician pledging to NEVER raise taxes for any reason, period, everandeverandever? War? Famine? Asteroid strike? The idea is simply ludicrous that a politician should ever make such a blanket pledge.
It is so ludicrous, that I can't help but think that this isn't a rational position anymore, but one based on some kind of strange faith. Taxes cannot ever be raised, not even if they are lowered elsewhere! The pledge actually would be used to go after someone who voted for lowering taxes A, B, and C, and raising tax D. This is no longer a matter of policy, it is a matter of religion.
Which makes me kind of wonder at the connection between religious fundamentalism in the GOP, and the GOP willingness to embrace what seems like a completely irrational position on a matter of something as secular as taxation. Is there a connection there? Is the same kind of blind "faith" that leads to people becoming religious fundamentalists that same faith that lets them actually believe something as insane as "no raising taxes ever under any circumstances no matter what"?
Extremism in defense of God is not a vice. :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on February 29, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
Which makes me kind of wonder at the connection between religious fundamentalism in the GOP, and the GOP willingness to embrace what seems like a completely irrational position on a matter of something as secular as taxation. Is there a connection there? Is the same kind of blind "faith" that leads to people becoming religious fundamentalists that same faith that lets them actually believe something as insane as "no raising taxes ever under any circumstances no matter what"?
I think that's the Andrew Sullivan line. The Republican Party has ceased to be a political party but is now effectively a religious movement:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-nausea-of-santorum.html
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774
He suggests that supply side economics, constant tax cuts, anti-environmentalism etc are now parts of the Republican credo and dogma. They're closer to religious beliefs than political thoughts. I'm not convinced personally.
What I find odd and dispiriting though is that everyone agrees with it. The saddest moment in this campaign was in one of the debates when they were asked to raise their hands if they would agree to a deal eliminating the deficit if it was 90% cuts and 10% revenue. No-one raised their hand, but what's worse is that the apparent moderates Huntsman and Romney were as staunch in rejecting it as Bachmann and Cain :bleeding:
Quote from: Berkut on February 29, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
One thing I've been thinking about in terms of the GOP is this entire Nordquist pledge insanity.
On the face of it, the basic idea is simply ridiculous - a politician pledging to NEVER raise taxes for any reason, period, everandeverandever? War? Famine? Asteroid strike? The idea is simply ludicrous that a politician should ever make such a blanket pledge.
I think the pledge is worded ambiguously enough to give some wiggle room, and I'd wager that most who have signed it would view it as having some flexibility (they *are* politicians, after all). I know what the ATF's intent of the pledge is, but the pledge itself is pretty ambiguous.
In immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:40:11 PM
In immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.
Um surely we need to do both at the same time? Granted I prefer it to the strategy of cutting taxes and then later promising (but doing the exact opposite) spending cuts strategy the Republicans usually love but um...wouldn't an actual real world solution have to be a package of both? Just sounds like a strategy designed to create excuses for failure and inaction rather than one that will produce results this country needs.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 28, 2012, 07:24:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2012, 06:47:58 PM
What happened after our grandparents generation is that the Warren Court was willing to use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose these kinds of rulings on a nationwide basis on state-run school systems.
The Warren Court couldn't have existed in our grandparents generation because the political world wouldn't have created (or tolerated) it.
That is so, but not because of views about the proper role of religious teaching in the schools.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:40:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 29, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
One thing I've been thinking about in terms of the GOP is this entire Nordquist pledge insanity.
On the face of it, the basic idea is simply ridiculous - a politician pledging to NEVER raise taxes for any reason, period, everandeverandever? War? Famine? Asteroid strike? The idea is simply ludicrous that a politician should ever make such a blanket pledge.
I think the pledge is worded ambiguously enough to give some wiggle room, and I'd wager that most who have signed it would view it as having some flexibility (they *are* politicians, after all). I know what the ATF's intent of the pledge is, but the pledge itself is pretty ambiguous.
In immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.
Problem is, Mr. No Taxes makes every effort in calling out those who deviate from the faith, and spends a lot of time and effort to make sure the heretic suffers for his sins in a very public manner, to the point that there is no "wiggle room" for anybody.
So fuck you. I wanna tax your dead fetus.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 12:25:36 PM
What I find odd and dispiriting though is that everyone agrees with it. The saddest moment in this campaign was in one of the debates when they were asked to raise their hands if they would agree to a deal eliminating the deficit if it was 90% cuts and 10% revenue. No-one raised their hand, but what's worse is that the apparent moderates Huntsman and Romney were as staunch in rejecting it as Bachmann and Cain :bleeding:
You must find primaries odd and dispiriting in general, then. It's an American political tradition to for candidates to promise things or go along with the flow during primaries and then ignore those pledges later on.
Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.
At current tax levels, federal revenues are at about 15% of GDP. If we are lucky, economic recovery will push that up to 16-18% or so within 3 years. It sill leaves a big shortfall. I have yet to see any vaguely realistic proposal that gets federal spending at or below 18% for any sustained period of time.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 12:25:36 PM
What I find odd and dispiriting though is that everyone agrees with it. The saddest moment in this campaign was in one of the debates when they were asked to raise their hands if they would agree to a deal eliminating the deficit if it was 90% cuts and 10% revenue. No-one raised their hand, but what's worse is that the apparent moderates Huntsman and Romney were as staunch in rejecting it as Bachmann and Cain :bleeding:
You must find primaries odd and dispiriting in general, then. It's an American political tradition to for candidates to promise things or go along with the flow during primaries and then ignore those pledges later on.
Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.
I know it is so weird we go through all these debates and so forth when the understanding from everybody participating is that everybody is lying to some extent, and that we are ok with that.
Quote from: Valmy on February 29, 2012, 12:42:35 PM
Um surely we need to do both at the same time? Granted I prefer it to the strategy of cutting taxes and then later promising (but doing the exact opposite) spending cuts strategy the Republicans usually love but um...wouldn't an actual real world solution have to be a package of both? Just sounds like a strategy designed to create excuses for failure and inaction rather than one that will produce results this country needs.
I think spending is a bigger problem than revenue (and yes, I know that theoretically they are both equal parts of the equation). And I don't trust the Democrats (nor do I trust some Republicans) not to get spend-happy with new, increased tax revenue.
I'd be willing to go back to pre-Bush tax rates if we also went back to pre-Bush spending at the same time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 12:25:36 PM
I think that's the Andrew Sullivan line. The Republican Party has ceased to be a political party but is now effectively a religious movement:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-nausea-of-santorum.html
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774
He suggests that supply side economics, constant tax cuts, anti-environmentalism etc are now parts of the Republican credo and dogma. They're closer to religious beliefs than political thoughts. I'm not convinced personally.
A big cross-section of politics has become "religious", and it's not just the GOP, nor just the US. For many people, it's a substitute for actual religion.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 01:10:33 PM
I think spending is a bigger problem than revenue (and yes, I know that theoretically they are both equal parts of the equation). And I don't trust the Democrats (nor do I trust some Republicans) not to get spend-happy with new, increased tax revenue.
I'd be willing to go back to pre-Bush tax rates if we also went back to pre-Bush spending at the same time.
If you were dictator I would take that into account. Unfortunately it is the idiots in DC who have to solve this crisis and any solution is probably going to be a massive shit sandwich loaded with garbage they need to get it passed. I am just not sure how demanding it be done in a pure and good way will result in anything less than it not happening at all...until the whole thing starts to bring us down.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:50:37 PMYou must find primaries odd and dispiriting in general, then. It's an American political tradition to for candidates to promise things or go along with the flow during primaries and then ignore those pledges later on.
Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.
I can't think of many he's broken. As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.
But I also can't think of any promise made by any of the candidates in 2008 that was similarly absolutist. None of the candidates would support any revenue increases as part of deficit reduction. What's the 2008 equivalent?
The pledge is pretty strong. This is the House version:
'ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.'
QuoteI think spending is a bigger problem than revenue (and yes, I know that theoretically they are both equal parts of the equation). And I don't trust the Democrats (nor do I trust some Republicans) not to get spend-happy with new, increased tax revenue.
Which is absolutely fine, there's a good argument to be had about the right balance. Our fiscal consolidation is around 25% revenue, 75% spending cuts. The only other international examples of similar magnitude were about 20% revenue, 80% spending cuts (Canada and Scandis in the 90s). Historically in Britain we generally have a 50-50 split, such as during the last Tory government in the 90s. There is, to my knowledge, no example of a purely spending cut based deficit reduction of the magnitude needed in the US.
I would also point out that obviously Canada, the UK and Scandinavia have far more spending to cut than the US Federal government which is another problem that may require a greater emphasis on tax. Personally I'd like to see Obama come out for Bowles-Simpson or Rivlin-Domenici (:mmm:).
Having said all that it is worth remembering that the US deficit has fallen quite significantly over the last few years. I believe it's actually fallen faster than our deficit and we're the ones getting praised by the IMF and OECD for having a credible and ambitious plan. But I think that's precisely the problem the US has is establishing deficit reduction that looks beyond the immediate budget and that seems to address the medium to long-term problems. Again revenue has to be part of that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:50:37 PM
Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.
I can't think of many he's broken. As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.
Gitmo.
Quote from: Barrister on February 29, 2012, 04:00:16 PM
Gitmo.
Or rolling back any of the Patriot Actesque stuff. Rather he has just let it continue on its way.
Ah well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
I can't think of many he's broken.
Renegotiate NAFTA.
Not exceed federal spending limit on 08 campaign.
Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.
If he wins as expected against Romney he will have to break the promise about no tax increases on people earning less than 200 K.
Remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to "prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through forceful diplomacy."
Quote from: Barrister on February 29, 2012, 04:00:16 PM
Gitmo.
Many, not any. I've always said that civil libertarians are the one group who can justifiably feel betrayed by Obama. The rest of his supporters who now find him insufficiently lefty just weren't paying attention during the election.
Quote from: Barrister on February 29, 2012, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:50:37 PM
Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.
I can't think of many he's broken. As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.
Gitmo.
Oh yeah, that one's keeping everyone up nights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:08:07 PMRenegotiate NAFTA.
Flesh this one out for me.
QuoteNot exceed federal spending limit on 08 campaign.
Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.
These are related to him as a candidate they're totally irrelevant. They're totally different from saying I will, as President, close Gitmo and not doing it. Or saying I will, as President, not sign any deficit reduction that increases revenues.
QuoteIf he wins as expected against Romney he will have to break the promise about no tax increases on people earning less than 200 K.
Well first we'll need to see if he runs on that in 2012.
QuoteRemains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to "prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through forceful diplomacy."
True enough. The forceful diplomacy's been working though. Though again this is of a rather different nature.
Edit: Anyway none of these really dispute my point that actually politicians don't routinely promise things in the heat of the primary and then ignore them. Generally politicians try to enact their promises. I've just looked up the study that found that 75% of promises made by Presidents from Wilson to Carter, as candidates, were kept or they tried to keep them. They've found 'that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises; the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition, not presidential flip-flopping'.
Similarly if you look at the Politifact thing they're tracking 500 promises Obama made, he's broken around 65. He's kept around 170 and another 160 are 'in the works', 50 have been done as 'compromises' and around 70 are 'stalled' in Congress or whatever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:08:07 PM
Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.
lol, nice try. Like he's going to unilaterally disarm.
Too funny the right's actually bitching about that one.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:08:07 PM
Remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to "prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through forceful diplomacy."
True enough. The forceful diplomacy's been working though. Though again this is of a rather different nature.
Doesn't matter if it's the GOP, the Dems, the Easter Bunny or Christ and his Dancing Apostles: no one will be able to prevent Iran from getting nukular weapons, and no one will be above the blame.
And if anybody's going to get the bill, it's Cokehead Dubya for not dealing with it from 2003-2008, instead of emboldening Tehran's aspirations by giving them Iraq on a platter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
Flesh this one out for me.
Before the Ohio primary he said he would renegotiate NAFTA to include workers' rights (i.e. raise Mexican labor costs). After Ohio he said it was "overheated campaign rhetoric."
QuoteThese are related to him as a candidate they're totally irrelevant. They're totally different from saying I will, as President, close Gitmo and not doing it. Or saying I will, as President, not sign any deficit reduction that increases revenues.
:lol: OK, didn't know we were ring-fencing campaign promises about the campaign.
QuoteWell first we'll need to see if he runs on that in 2012.
:lol: OK, didn't know campaign promises reset at reelection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:22:17 PMBefore the Ohio primary he said he would renegotiate NAFTA to include workers' rights (i.e. raise Mexican labor costs). After Ohio he said it was "overheated campaign rhetoric."
So he walked it back during the campaign? It's obviously not a promise then.
Quote:lol: OK, didn't know we were ring-fencing campaign promises about the campaign.
My point is about whether candidates try to fulfil their promises as Presidents.
Quote:lol: OK, didn't know campaign promises reset at reelection.
Well obviously :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 04:15:32 PM
lol, nice try. Like he's going to unilaterally disarm.
Too funny the right's actually bitching about that one.
My bad. I didn't know the topic was "campaign promises that were painless to keep."
I haven't heard any bitching from the right on this one, mostly from the mainstream media. But then again I don't pick up much commentary from the right, so they could be bitching their heads off.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:24:33 PM
So he walked it back during the campaign? It's obviously not a promise then.
Obviously. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:25:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:24:33 PM
So he walked it back during the campaign? It's obviously not a promise then.
Obviously. :hmm:
If you say it once you're committed, and for both terms?
I think if you've publicly walked back a promise it's absurd to then be judged for not delivering on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 04:15:32 PM
lol, nice try. Like he's going to unilaterally disarm.
Too funny the right's actually bitching about that one.
My bad. I didn't know the topic was "campaign promises that were painless to keep."
I haven't heard any bitching from the right on this one, mostly from the mainstream media. But then again I don't pick up much commentary from the right, so they could be bitching their heads off.
You don't watch television anyway, so you didn't see Obama's interview last week with WBTV (CBS) where the interviewer tried calling him on it.
So sit on it, Potsy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:29:03 PM
If you say it once you're committed, and for both terms?
Unless you qualify it.
QuoteI think if you've publicly walked back a promise it's absurd to then be judged for not delivering on it.
I think once people have cast a vote based in part on your promise then not keeping it is welching on a deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
I can't think of many he's broken.
Renegotiate NAFTA.
Not exceed federal spending limit on 08 campaign.
Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.
If he wins as expected against Romney he will have to break the promise about no tax increases on people earning less than 200 K.
Remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to "prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through forceful diplomacy."
Why don't you give us examples of him actually saying these things.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 04:34:14 PM
Why don't you give us examples of him actually saying these things.
Because it would be a trivial and meaningless excercise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:32:24 PM
Unless you qualify it.
Or, as is the case here, publicly backed off from it?
However I've looked up your example, as best I can, because I can't find anything about that specific promise. The Politifact site I mentioned has this subject as 'Include environmental and labor standards in trade agreements'. They've rated it a compromise. They've been included in new trade deals and apparently the Administration's still advocating for stricter environmental and labour provisions in NAFTA, but short of renegotiation.
But I'm not sure what the promise was regarding renegotiation. But I'd suggest that this seems more like an example of what I've been arguing, that Presidents generally try to deliver on their promises so it's worth paying attention and not just cynically dismissing everything said in a primary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:42:35 PM
Or, as is the case here, publicly backed off from it?
The qualification thing was about your one term only thing, which was about tax hikes, not NAFTA.
[/quote]But I'm not sure what the promise was regarding renegotiation. But I'd suggest that this seems more like an example of what I've been arguing, that Presidents generally try to deliver on their promises so it's worth paying attention and not just cynically dismissing everything said in a primary.
[/quote]
The promise was "I will renegotiate NAFTA to include labor rights."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:49:46 PMThe promise was "I will renegotiate NAFTA to include labor rights."
I'll take your word. It, with Gitmo, is a broken promise. The other 75% he's trying to keep.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
Edit: Anyway none of these really dispute my point that actually politicians don't routinely promise things in the heat of the primary and then ignore them. Generally politicians try to enact their promises. I've just looked up the study that found that 75% of promises made by Presidents from Wilson to Carter, as candidates, were kept or they tried to keep them. They've found 'that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises; the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition, not presidential flip-flopping'.
Similarly if you look at the Politifact thing they're tracking 500 promises Obama made, he's broken around 65. He's kept around 170 and another 160 are 'in the works', 50 have been done as 'compromises' and around 70 are 'stalled' in Congress or whatever.
I'd say 65 broken promises is a lot. To me the raw number of promises broken is more important than the percentage. And I'm not trying to dump on Obama-- I was just using him as a recent example.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 29, 2012, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:50:37 PM
Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.
I can't think of many he's broken. As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.
Gitmo.
Oh yeah, that one's keeping everyone up nights.
Note that I did say "for better or worse". File this in the "better", but it's still a broken promise.
The broken promise that bothers me the most is his transparency pledge. It took him just a few days in office to shit all over that one.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 05:09:10 PMThe broken promise that bothers me the most is his transparency pledge. It took him just a few days in office to shit all over that one.
I bet you really regret voting for him now :console:
Quote from: Jacob on February 29, 2012, 05:12:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 05:09:10 PMThe broken promise that bothers me the most is his transparency pledge. It took him just a few days in office to shit all over that one.
I bet you really regret voting for him now :console:
More like I regret not giving more money to Hillary's campaign. Anyway, it was one of those "silver lining"-type things I hoped would make his presidency less painful.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 05:04:48 PM
I'd say 65 broken promises is a lot. To me the raw number of promises broken is more important than the percentage. And I'm not trying to dump on Obama-- I was just using him as a recent example.
I get it's not about Obama - neither's my point, but Politifact's easier to browse than a paper on Athens on Presidents from Wilson to Carter :lol:
I see your point. But the context is candidates saying things to go with the flow or make easy promises in the primaries. The percentage matters to me because you've got got a 3 in 4 chance they'll try and do it, even if there's lots of individual broken promises on the way.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 05:24:44 PMMore like I regret not giving more money to Hillary's campaign. Anyway, it was one of those "silver lining"-type things I hoped would make his presidency less painful.
You gave money to Hillary? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on February 29, 2012, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 05:24:44 PMMore like I regret not giving more money to Hillary's campaign. Anyway, it was one of those "silver lining"-type things I hoped would make his presidency less painful.
You gave money to Hillary? :huh:
I made a token donation, yes.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 29, 2012, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 05:24:44 PMMore like I regret not giving more money to Hillary's campaign. Anyway, it was one of those "silver lining"-type things I hoped would make his presidency less painful.
You gave money to Hillary? :huh:
I made a token donation, yes.
Imagine his surprise when he couldn't just tuck it into her garter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 29, 2012, 08:05:23 PM
Imagine his surprise when he couldn't just tuck it into her garter.
Hillary's legs :wub:
No wonder your sports take so long, this is like death by a thousand sound bites.
Damn, I wish Obama really was like Putin, then is 'election' would be so much more orderly and concise. :ph34r:
omg, is that mongers whining again about the primary?
Seriously mongers, you got that point across with the first three identical posts.
If someone started up a cricket thread and I posted every single day in there that cricket takes too long and is boring to watch, you'd think I was a retard, wouldn't you?
I'd think you were just talking common sense Yipster. I mean it is cricket.
Quote from: katmai on February 29, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
I'd think you were just talking common sense Yipster. I mean it is cricket.
Even a cricket thread doesn't deserve to be stalked. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 29, 2012, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 04:34:14 PM
Why don't you give us examples of him actually saying these things.
Because it would be a trivial and meaningless excercise.
I suppose it would be a meaningless exercise to prove he broke some promises in the future.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2012, 04:06:49 AMI suppose it would be a meaningless exercise to prove he broke some promises in the future.
really? you've somehow missed at least the news re: the hypocrisy related to obama condemning super pacs and then accepting what they have to offer? i mean, i don't really follow politics all that much, and still i've heard it
here:
QuoteIn October of that year, shortly before the mid-term elections, the president lambasted the role of outside spending groups, particularly those that are not required to disclose its donors.
"This isn't just a threat to Democrats," he said. "This is a threat to our democracy."
now, knowing raz, if he hadn't ignored me i can easily see him arguing for ten pages over little nitpicky issues that really don't mean anything like "oh obama never said super pacs" or "he never said he wouldn't use them, he just said they're a threat to democracy!" but .. alas :(
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2012, 04:06:49 AM
I suppose it would be a meaningless exercise to prove he broke some promises in the future.
What?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2012, 05:20:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2012, 04:06:49 AM
I suppose it would be a meaningless exercise to prove he broke some promises in the future.
What?
How can you make a promise in the future??? :huh: The promise would technically not exsist?? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2012, 05:20:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2012, 04:06:49 AM
I suppose it would be a meaningless exercise to prove he broke some promises in the future.
What?
Two of your examples of broken promises are predictions of what he will do in the future. It is rather meaningless to attempt to prove Obama will do something in the future.
10 takeaways from an early screening of 'Game Change': http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F03%2F120301_gamechange_605_victor_caruso.jpg&hash=4bc5be3dfd917b98590e2273c8d6b23f199476ec)
I may watch this. I love movies with good endings. :)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:15:52 AM
10 takeaways from an early screening of 'Game Change': http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html)
QuotePalin does indeed come off as a flawed candidate in the film, with advisers questioning her mental stability. She's reluctant to heed advice to prepare for debates and to put the good of the ticket over her own personal desires and ambitions. The Palin character comes across as woefully unprepared for the national stage and fails to understand the basics of such topics as the Federal Reserve, the British monarchy, World War II, North & South Korea and who attacked the United States on Sept. 11. Flattering or not, HBO says it's simply the truth.
It's not like we needed HBO to figure that out. It was pretty apparent at the time.
She makes a pretty decent Palin until you work your way down to that megachin :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 12:22:41 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:15:52 AM
10 takeaways from an early screening of 'Game Change': http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html)
QuotePalin does indeed come off as a flawed candidate in the film, with advisers questioning her mental stability. She's reluctant to heed advice to prepare for debates and to put the good of the ticket over her own personal desires and ambitions. The Palin character comes across as woefully unprepared for the national stage and fails to understand the basics of such topics as the Federal Reserve, the British monarchy, World War II, North & South Korea and who attacked the United States on Sept. 11. Flattering or not, HBO says it's simply the truth.
It's not like we needed HBO to figure that out. It was pretty apparent at the time.
:yes:
HBO doesn't need to say that it is simply the truth...as it just is. :D
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 12:24:29 PM
She makes a pretty decent Palin until you work your way down to that megachin :mellow:
Back off Julianne Moore <_<
I'm looking forward to this just for her performance. Personally though I think a far more interesting 2008 drama would be the Edwards campaign.
Quote from: derspiess on February 29, 2012, 12:40:11 PM
I think the pledge is worded ambiguously enough to give some wiggle room, and I'd wager that most who have signed it would view it as having some flexibility (they *are* politicians, after all). I know what the ATF's intent of the pledge is, but the pledge itself is pretty ambiguous.
I think the pledge is not worded at all ambiguously, and all the wiggle room allowed is that the pledge is aimed at only the income and corporate taxes.
Though Norquist pretends that the pledge applies to all taxes, of course.
QuoteIn immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.
It is precisely this kind of weasel that makes me dislike the tax pledge so much. Claiming that one will compromise as soon as the other side surrenders is just a way to avoid compromising.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2012, 12:33:04 PM
Back off Julianne Moore <_<
Never was a fan. She's had roles where she was *almost* attractive, but never quite put it all together.
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2012, 12:33:04 PM
Back off Julianne Moore <_<
Never was a fan. She's had roles where she was *almost* attractive, but never quite put it all together.
I think she's a decent actress but she was really only hot once, and that was as the doctor in
The Fugitive.
I liked her in
Magnolia.
She had a really hot sex scene in Chloe. :perv:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2012, 12:33:04 PM
Back off Julianne Moore <_<
Never was a fan. She's had roles where she was *almost* attractive, but never quite put it all together.
I think she's a decent actress but she was really only hot once, and that was as the doctor in The Fugitive.
I liked her in Magnolia.
She can act okay, I guess. But she was a very weak Clarice in Hannibal-- though I guess it'd be nearly impossible to follow Jodie Foster in that role.
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
She can act okay, I guess. But she was a very weak Clarice in Hannibal-- though I guess it'd be nearly impossible to follow Jodie Foster in that role.
Well, she was only as strong as a weak script and a rewritten ending that diverged from the novel--which is why Foster refused to do it.
I'd just like to point out that not being as good an actress as Jodie Foster still leaves open the option of merely being the 2nd best female actress of her generation. I'm not suggesting Moore is the 2nd best female actress of her generation, I'm just pointing out that saying that moore is not as good as foster reduces to saying that moore is not the same person as foster.
I just noticed there's a Canadian election thread, and it's almost as long as this one. :lol:
Meryl Streep is roughly the same generation as Foster, she's certainly the most acclaimed actress of the generation.
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
She can act okay, I guess. But she was a very weak Clarice in Hannibal-- though I guess it'd be nearly impossible to follow Jodie Foster in that role.
Julianne Moore is generally pretty weak though even while likeable.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2012, 02:40:37 PM
Meryl Streep is roughly the same generation as Foster, she's certainly the most acclaimed actress of the generation.
Hmm? Meryl Streep is more in Glenn Close/Candice Bergen generation.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2012, 02:40:37 PM
I just noticed there's a Canadian election thread, and it's almost as long as this one. :lol:
We cheated - the election was over more than a year ago, but we keep using the same thread. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2012, 02:47:28 PM
Hmm? Meryl Streep is more in Glenn Close/Candice Bergen generation.
Withdrawn. I didn't realize she was over 30 when she did Sophie's Choice.
Gingrich is running radio ads like crazy here. Literally every commercial break yesterday afternoon. It ends with something like "People in Washington don't like Newt very much. But that's a good thing."
I suppose it might be a good thing-- if only people outside Washington felt any differently :D
Meanwhile in Iran (courtesy of Titanic): "Thrilling preliminaries in Iran: two candidates already eliminated!"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titanic-magazin.de%2Fuploads%2Fpics%2FVorwahlen_01.jpg&hash=0921c2495dd13172a778717336e1da44f95b628c)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
She can act okay, I guess. But she was a very weak Clarice in Hannibal-- though I guess it'd be nearly impossible to follow Jodie Foster in that role.
Well, she was only as strong as a weak script and a rewritten ending that diverged from the novel--which is why Foster refused to do it.
Nobody came out of that movie a winner. Even Lecter was diminished as a result of that film.
Quote from: Syt on March 02, 2012, 11:38:28 AM
Meanwhile in Iran (courtesy of Titanic): "Thrilling preliminaries in Iran: two candidates already eliminated!"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titanic-magazin.de%2Fuploads%2Fpics%2FVorwahlen_01.jpg&hash=0921c2495dd13172a778717336e1da44f95b628c)
The Republican primaries could use a bit of that approach ... :D
The Newt "winning our future" PAC is still running ads in Nevada against Romney. Hello, McFly? Caucus is over, please do a better job at buying air time. thx.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2012, 02:40:37 PM
I just noticed there's a Canadian election thread, and it's almost as long as this one. :lol:
Meryl Streep is roughly the same generation as Foster, she's certainly the most acclaimed actress of the generation.
Streep is a '49 model Foster is a '62, though they both broke into the entertainment industry in 1976, only Foster was in Bugsy Malone while Streep got famous on broadway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
She can act okay, I guess. But she was a very weak Clarice in Hannibal-- though I guess it'd be nearly impossible to follow Jodie Foster in that role.
Well, she was only as strong as a weak script and a rewritten ending that diverged from the novel--which is why Foster refused to do it.
I think the book's pretty poor too. Harris got a bit into writing Hannibal and could have done with an editor to tone it down. Clarice is weak in the novel and the film. But I think Moore's really good. She's brilliant in The Hours, Magnolia, The End of the Affair (otherwise a poor film) and Boogie Nights. I liked her in that Kids Are Alright film too.
No argument on Foster. She's a great actress.
I love Meryl but I find her a bit overrated. She's like a good (but not great) British actor, a female Kenneth Branagh. There's always something a bit Streep-ish about almost all of her performances. Plus I think she goes in for not that good award-bait films way too easily.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Well, she was only as strong as a weak script and a rewritten ending that diverged from the novel--which is why Foster refused to do it.
Meh, the ending of the book sucked and deserved to be changed.
Quote from: Kleves on March 02, 2012, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Well, she was only as strong as a weak script and a rewritten ending that diverged from the novel--which is why Foster refused to do it.
Meh, the ending of the book sucked and deserved to be changed.
Nonsense. That was a total and complete brain fuck of biblical proportions, as only Hannibal Lecter could accomplish. I felt it was done triumphantly.
Today was Washington's GOP caucus. I had never really handled a caucus like this before, but I just lined up behind Romney and powered through until I was spent. It was oddly satisfying.
Quote from: Kleves on March 03, 2012, 02:24:00 PM
Today was Washington's GOP caucus. I had never really handled a caucus like this before, but I just lined up behind Romney and powered through until I was spent. It was oddly satisfying.
:rolleyes:
Romney will likely win the most delegates this Super Tuesday, but the message of the night will probably be centered on who wins Ohio.
A secondary story may be about Gingrich, and whether he still has second or first place support in any states outside of Georgia.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html)
Surprised nobody's posted this:
From Romney, in 2009:
http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/
Quote
Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.
From Mitt Romney's Op ed in 2009 in USA Today.
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
She can act okay, I guess. But she was a very weak Clarice in Hannibal-- though I guess it'd be nearly impossible to follow Jodie Foster in that role.
Jodie Foster is such a great actress, does anybody have any ideas on how i could impress her??
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 12:22:41 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2012, 11:15:52 AM
10 takeaways from an early screening of 'Game Change': http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73491.html)
QuotePalin does indeed come off as a flawed candidate in the film, with advisers questioning her mental stability. She's reluctant to heed advice to prepare for debates and to put the good of the ticket over her own personal desires and ambitions. The Palin character comes across as woefully unprepared for the national stage and fails to understand the basics of such topics as the Federal Reserve, the British monarchy, World War II, North & South Korea and who attacked the United States on Sept. 11. Flattering or not, HBO says it's simply the truth.
It's not like we needed HBO to figure that out. It was pretty apparent at the time.
Andrew Breitbart is rolling over in his grave. Or has he been buried yet?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2012, 12:49:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2012, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2012, 12:33:04 PM
Back off Julianne Moore <_<
Never was a fan. She's had roles where she was *almost* attractive, but never quite put it all together.
I think she's a decent actress but she was really only hot once, and that was as the doctor in The Fugitive.
I liked her in Magnolia.
Big Lebowski.
Romney wins 5th straight contest in Washington caucus.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73577.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
Similarly if you look at the Politifact thing they're tracking 500 promises Obama made, he's broken around 65. He's kept around 170 and another 160 are 'in the works', 50 have been done as 'compromises' and around 70 are 'stalled' in Congress or whatever.
Late to the party, but the bolded actually concerns me. That's just way too many for an election cycle that runs maybe 12 months (not sure if Politifact includes speculative "promises" suggested before the start of primaries). That boils down to over 40 promises made each month, more than one per day. That's used car salesman level, that.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 04, 2012, 11:10:09 AM
That boils down to over 40 promises made each month, more than one per day. That's used car salesman level, that.
Essentially, that's what politicians are.
Tennessee might actually be a toss-up between Romney and Santorum: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tn/tennessee_republican_presidential_primary-2043.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tn/tennessee_republican_presidential_primary-2043.html)
If Romney can win Ohio plus a southern state or two on Super Tuesday, he may finally put a decisive end to this nomination contest.
Meanwhile, RCP now has Ron Paul beating Newt Gingrich for third place in number of delegates: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 04, 2012, 11:10:09 AM
Late to the party, but the bolded actually concerns me. That's just way too many for an election cycle that runs maybe 12 months (not sure if Politifact includes speculative "promises" suggested before the start of primaries). That boils down to over 40 promises made each month, more than one per day. That's used car salesman level, that.
Well the election runs for a lot longer than a year. I think this time round we'd already had 50 debates by November :P
But also if you think that each promise is regarding a specific policy - that's what they're measuring. So he says 'I'll pass healthcare reform' - they don't count that.
Rather they count the promises made in his platform, policy documents, briefings and speeches on what that healthcare reform bill should include. If you do that across all policy areas you end up with a lot. I think especially in the last election because I remember Edwards releasing incredibly detailed policy plans, which then forced Clinton and Obama to releasing similarly detailed ones. So it's not that a promise is made a day, it's that they make a big speech and release a briefing paper on, say, Medicare - in the course of doing that they'll probably have made 20-30 promises.
Then there's lots of promises to work towards something, or to study something. Each of those gets measured on the site as a 'promise' even though it's really, really easy to keep.
Anyway if you think that's bad the last British election would terrify you. I think the Tory manifesto was about 300 pages long and the election only lasted 6 weeks :lol:
A six week election period wouldn't be so bad. Even I can read a 300 page book in six weeks.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2012, 08:45:45 PM
Andrew Breitbart is rolling over in his grave. Or has he been buried yet?
I'm sure you're dancing on it, either way.
Quote from: Phillip VIf Romney can win Ohio plus a southern state or two on Super Tuesday, he may finally put a decisive end to this nomination contest.
Shit, how did Ohio go from being a Santorum lock to a 50/50 between Romney & Santorum? I guess I'm not gonna be able to vote for Paul :(
I'm not even going to bother voting.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
I'm not even going to bother voting.
I've decided I'm going to vote against Mean Jean Schmidt, in favor of someone less wrinkly.
And I'm definitely voting for Romney now, after seeing him on TV wearing jeans & having rolled up sleeves. HE'S ONE OF US :w00t:
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
I'm not even going to bother voting.
I've decided I'm going to vote against Mean Jean Schmidt, in favor of someone less wrinkly.
And I'm definitely voting for Romney now, after seeing him on TV wearing jeans & having rolled up sleeves. HE'S ONE OF US :w00t:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fyipi.gif&hash=fdbbb7f660d6d5517297aec7a5656151f08b7075)
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
I'm not even going to bother voting.
I've decided I'm going to vote against Mean Jean Schmidt, in favor of someone less wrinkly.
And I'm definitely voting for Romney now, after seeing him on TV wearing jeans & having rolled up sleeves. HE'S ONE OF US :w00t:
You should vote your conscience: Santorum. In your heart, you know he's right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 12:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
I'm not even going to bother voting.
I've decided I'm going to vote against Mean Jean Schmidt, in favor of someone less wrinkly.
And I'm definitely voting for Romney now, after seeing him on TV wearing jeans & having rolled up sleeves. HE'S ONE OF US :w00t:
You should vote your conscience: Santorum. In your heart, you know he's right.
Too Catholic.
Peronist?
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:09:46 PMNon-practicing.
She's already good enough, I guess.
So you're some sort of proddie then?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 12:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 11:30:50 AM
I'm not even going to bother voting.
I've decided I'm going to vote against Mean Jean Schmidt, in favor of someone less wrinkly.
And I'm definitely voting for Romney now, after seeing him on TV wearing jeans & having rolled up sleeves. HE'S ONE OF US :w00t:
You should vote your conscience: Santorum. In your heart, you know he's right.
Reminds me of the great counter-slogan: "in your guts, you know he's nuts". :D
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:29:55 AM
I'm sure you're dancing on it, either way.
He wouldn't have it any other way. After all, that's what he did when other people died. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:09:46 PMNon-practicing.
She's already good enough, I guess.
So you're some sort of proddie then?
Doesn't he wear orange on St Paddy's Day? Or is that Beeb? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:09:46 PMNon-practicing.
She's already good enough, I guess.
So you're some sort of proddie then?
Doesn't he wear orange on St Paddy's Day? Or is that Beeb? :hmm:
Like wearing white sheets on Juneteenth.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:09:46 PMNon-practicing.
She's already good enough, I guess.
So you're some sort of proddie then?
Doesn't he wear orange on St Paddy's Day? Or is that Beeb? :hmm:
Both of those Protty bastards
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:09:46 PMNon-practicing.
She's already good enough, I guess.
So you're some sort of proddie then?
Doesn't he wear orange on St Paddy's Day? Or is that Beeb? :hmm:
Correct.
Jake: I'm a radical Methodist.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 08:50:24 PMJake: I'm a radical Methodist.
Sounds pretty gangsta.
At least he ain't a Unitarian. The plain jello of faith.
I grew up in the United Methodist church and at least in the northeast Methodists are among the most liberal of 'mainline' Christians. We had a female (shock!) lesbian (SHOCK!) associate pastor. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2012, 09:15:58 PM
I grew up in the United Methodist church and at least in the northeast Methodists are among the most liberal of 'mainline' Christians. We had a female (shock!) lesbian (SHOCK!) associate pastor. :)
I had a priest who was into chicks as well.
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2012, 09:15:58 PM
I grew up in the United Methodist church and at least in the northeast Methodists are among the most liberal of 'mainline' Christians. We had a female (shock!) lesbian (SHOCK!) associate pastor. :)
Dont the fundies call that an abomination.
lets ask derspicy
I'm not a fundy, but I'm not fond of female ministers to begin with.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 10:33:53 PM
I'm not a fundy, but I'm not fond of female ministers to begin with.
Sounds as if she has the double evil going.
I sill haven't gotten my sandwich.
In my ongoing series of observations about differences between the American right and left:
it's very common to hear "if [Democratic Dude] does such and such he will be crucified by the right," but I have yet to hear "if [Republican Dude] does such and such he will be crucified by the left."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 05:24:58 AM
In my ongoing series of observations about differences between the American right and left:
it's very common to hear "if [Democratic Dude] does such and such he will be crucified by the right," but I have yet to hear "if [Republican Dude] does such and such he will be crucified by the left."
Really? Do you have hearing problem?
Really!
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 10:33:53 PM
I'm not a fundy, but I'm not fond of female ministers to begin with.
She was a pretty bad minister, point in fact. :)
Crucifixion is reactionary. The Left prefers firing squads.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 05:49:38 AM
Really!
I googled "If a Republican tried" and got someone saying just that. First hit.
What I think is somewhat common is the formulation "if a Republican *had* done what this Democrat just did..." What I think is less common/nonexistent is "if a Republican does this [in the future]..."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 06:45:38 AM
What I think is somewhat common is the formulation "if a Republican *had* done what this Democrat just did..." What I think is less common/nonexistent is "if a Republican does this [in the future]..."
I think I'm missing your point here.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:21:04 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 06:45:38 AM
What I think is somewhat common is the formulation "if a Republican *had* done what this Democrat just did..." What I think is less common/nonexistent is "if a Republican does this [in the future]..."
I think I'm missing your point here.
Yi's doing his passive-aggressive thing again. Figured you'd learn by now, I Am Sam.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 06:14:19 AM
Crucifixion is reactionary. The Left prefers firing squads.
:yes:
Both sides however are happy to use camps.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 07:25:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:21:04 AM
I think I'm missing your point here.
The tense.
1. What is the real difference here? I still don't understand why that's particularly important.
2. Do you have oodles of examples of the opposite happening?
To put it more succinctly, what is the point to all this?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:38:29 AM
1. What is the real difference here? I still don't understand why that's particularly important.
2. Do you have oodles of examples of the opposite happening?
To put it more succinctly, what is the point to all this?
"What is the point of all this" is not a succint way of putting "do you have oodles of examples of the opposite happening."
I don't have a point. Just an observation.
Or to put it more succintly, your #2 doesn't fit in with the rest of your post.
2. would be part of your observation. Are you observing oodles of examples of the opposite happening? If so, give me some of these examples.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:45:57 AM
2. would be part of your observation. Are you observing oodles of examples of the opposite happening? If so, give me some of these examples.
What for? If you want to think it's not true I could give a shit.
Imagine if the Democratic primaries/caucuses in 2008 had been Clinton and Obama trying to prove and continually say that each (and not the other) was the "True Liberal" in the race. :D
I voted. Polling place was pretty empty. I was given the option of a GOP, Democrat, Green, Socialist, or Libertarian ballot. The Libertarian ballot had no candidates for anything-- it just had the one local issue we were voting on: a property tax levy for the local school district. I wonder if they had that pre-filled with "NO".
I voted for Mitt :yawn:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fgreat.gif&hash=16908de3a1a71ef03ee203011db10d5f8f4f9913)
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
I voted. Polling place was pretty empty. I was given the option of a GOP, Democrat, Green, Socialist, or Libertarian ballot. The Libertarian ballot had no candidates for anything-- it just had the one local issue we were voting on: a property tax levy for the local school district. I wonder if they had that pre-filled with "NO".
I voted for Mitt :yawn:
Quote from: Ideologue on March 06, 2012, 03:24:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
Green, Socialist
Decisions, decisions. :(
Yeah, I'm sure their primaries have been riveting. And I'd be surprised if there were members of either party in my district.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 07:47:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:45:57 AM
2. would be part of your observation. Are you observing oodles of examples of the opposite happening? If so, give me some of these examples.
What for? If you want to think it's not true I could give a shit.
Then why post anything? You are making a post without a point based on observations you don't wish to share. That's very strange Yi. Pointless posts provoked by mysterious and possibly imaginary observations is something I would expect from a crazy person.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 07:47:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:45:57 AM
2. would be part of your observation. Are you observing oodles of examples of the opposite happening? If so, give me some of these examples.
What for? If you want to think it's not true I could give a shit.
Then why post anything? You are making a post without a point based on observations you don't wish to share. That's very strange Yi. Pointless posts provoked by mysterious and possibly imaginary observations is something I would expect from a crazy person.
I think it's possible for one to make a casual observation without wanting to get into detailed, contentious debate over it. Let it go.
Very well.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 04:49:25 PM
Then why post anything?
Because there are plenty of posters on this board who are happy to discuss issues in good faith.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:38:29 AM
To put it more succinctly, what is the point to all this?
I don't think there is a point. It's more of a bit of a 49 page long conversation that meanders and oozes all around.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
I voted. Polling place was pretty empty. I was given the option of a GOP, Democrat, Green, Socialist, or Libertarian ballot. The Libertarian ballot had no candidates for anything-- it just had the one local issue we were voting on: a property tax levy for the local school district. I wonder if they had that pre-filled with "NO".
I voted for Mitt :yawn:
I watched reruns of Top Gear on Netflix. The old lady nazis at the polling places can go eat a bowl of dicks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 05:20:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 04:49:25 PM
Then why post anything?
Because there are plenty of posters on this board who are happy to discuss issues in good faith.
I am discussing in good faith. You are the one who seems to be making accusations of hypocrisy, er
observations of hypocrisy, but when pressed dance away from it.
You make a post, and I contest it. You claim it had no point, it was just an observation. I ask what exactly you observed, you tell me to mind my own business. What do you mean by "good faith" here, then?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:45:04 PM
You make a post, and I contest it. You claim it had no point, it was just an observation.
This is when a normal person would back off.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 05:53:20 PM
I watched reruns of Top Gear on Netflix. The old lady nazis at the polling places can go eat a bowl of dicks.
My old ladies give out candy. And apparently one of them dragged her 20-year old grandson there to work. Kid looked like he wanted to kill himself.
So is super duper Tuesday shaping up to be Mitts' big day ?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:45:04 PM
You make a post, and I contest it. You claim it had no point, it was just an observation.
This is when a normal person would back off.
I think you should remember who you are talking to.
Besides, my tribe was slighted. I have nothing against Yi personally. I like Yi. I even respect Yi. Yi can be infuriating sometimes, though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:45:04 PM
You make a post, and I contest it. You claim it had no point, it was just an observation.
This is when a normal person would back off.
:yes: Raz, sometimes you can be a real pest. This is one of those times.
Newt wins Georgia, his home state and the state with most delegates up for grabs today.
Romney wins Virginia (his only competition was Paul though).
Paul's got 42% of the vote with 12% in Virginia. If that holds up that's a horrible performance for Romney.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 07:27:38 PM
Paul's got 42% of the vote with 12% in Virginia. If that holds up that's a horrible performance for Romney.
That pretty much tells you how many are the not-romney vote, since Newt's not on the ballot there.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2012, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:45:04 PM
You make a post, and I contest it. You claim it had no point, it was just an observation.
This is when a normal person would back off.
:yes: Raz, sometimes you can be a real pest. This is one of those times.
I prefer, "Determined".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:33:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2012, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:45:04 PM
You make a post, and I contest it. You claim it had no point, it was just an observation.
This is when a normal person would back off.
:yes: Raz, sometimes you can be a real pest. This is one of those times.
I prefer, "Determined".
I overrule your judgement and rule that "stalkerish" shall be used. Case closed!
I was acquitted on those charges! :mad: Twice.
With .1% reporting Santorum's up 39.3% to Romney's 37% in Ohio.
Santorum wins Oklahoma, Romney Mass.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 08:07:23 PM
Santorum wins Oklahoma.
Called for him with fewer than 200 total votes counted. :lol:
Romney's in third place there.
My gut says Santorum will win TN but lose OH. It'll be close though.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
Tennessee called for Santorum.
Too funny.
Was watching one of the talking head shows a week or so ago, and the point was made that an inadvertent side-effect of the new campaign financing rules and these Super PACs are that marginal candidates such as Santorum and Gingrich wind up with longer staying power in the primary process, when their original campaign accounts would've run out of money a long time ago.
Valid point; these morons should've been gone for quite a while by now; instead, they're muddying the waters, flinging poo, and making things more difficult for the eventual nominee we all already know.
Gingrich is poo-poohing the "national elites" in the Republican Party and the media. HE'S SO ROGUE
Imagine the scandal when President Romney marries himself a Second Lady. :cool:
I'm borrowing the phrase 'deliciously incoherent'.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 08:58:18 PM
I'm borrowing the phrase 'deliciously incoherent'.
What's deliciously incoherent is that he's saying that closing the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war. How deliciously forgetful.
lol, he just blamed gasoline prices on the Obama Administration again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 08:46:48 PM
Too funny.
Was watching one of the talking head shows a week or so ago, and the point was made that an inadvertent side-effect of the new campaign financing rules and these Super PACs are that marginal candidates such as Santorum and Gingrich wind up with longer staying power in the primary process, when their original campaign accounts would've run out of money a long time ago.
Valid point; these morons should've been gone for quite a while by now; instead, they're muddying the waters, flinging poo, and making things more difficult for the eventual nominee we all already know.
To be fair to them, Romney will be doing those things to himself once he gets the nomination.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 08:48:18 PM
Gingrich is poo-poohing the "national elites" in the Republican Party and the media. HE'S SO ROGUE
God, his support base is stupid.
Foxnews.com seems to have much more up to date #s.
With 24% in Ohio counted Santorum is up by almost 6k votes
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/ohio-primary-super-tuesday (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/ohio-primary-super-tuesday)
34% in and Santorum leads by 13k votes
Sanitorium just said the Constitution doesn't give us our rights, our Creator does.
I thought he just endowed us with them in the Declaration of Independence. :(
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
So will I, but genius staff that he has, they didn't file for a full compliment for delegates throughout the state, so he can only win so many in Ohio, regardless of his total number of votes.
I mean, you do go to the Convention with delegates, not votes, right? Right?
CNN is showing that Romney leads with Catholics. I find that hilarious. I guess I'm not the only one who looks at Santorum and say "What the fuck? That's not what I believe! What the Hell is going on about"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:40:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
So will I, but genius staff that he has, they didn't file for a full compliment for delegates throughout the state, so he can only win so many in Ohio, regardless of his total number of votes.
I mean, you do go to the Convention with delegates, not votes, right? Right?
Can you blame them? Why do all that work for a guy who wasn't supposed to be around at this point.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:40:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
So will I, but genius staff that he has, they didn't file for a full compliment for delegates throughout the state, so he can only win so many in Ohio, regardless of his total number of votes.
I mean, you do go to the Convention with delegates, not votes, right? Right?
You have to file for that? :huh:
If you're on a statewide ballot you should be able to win all of them.
45% in, Santorum up by 17k.
Quote"We can be poor in spirit, and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow. How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that's where my values are and that's where my riches are."
--Ann Romney
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:55:05 PM
Quote"We can be poor in spirit, and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow. How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that's where my values are and that's where my riches are."
--Ann Romney
:lol:
She didn't think that one through real well.
And in other news, dog bites man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:40:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
So will I, but genius staff that he has, they didn't file for a full compliment for delegates throughout the state, so he can only win so many in Ohio, regardless of his total number of votes.
I mean, you do go to the Convention with delegates, not votes, right? Right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gchambers.plus.com%2Fgallery%2Fcommando%2Fwrong.jpg&hash=55ad58cde0e402d38a45ad5fc35a72ea5e47bfef)
Hey derspiess, here's one right up your alley.
QuoteKaren Santorum: Bringing Dead Baby Home Was Way to Grieve
Rick Santorum's wife says in an interview that their decision to bring their dead baby son to their kids wasn't "some crazy thing" and that it was a personal way to cope with his death.
In an interview with CBS News's Jan Crawford, Karen Santorum opened up about the criticism she and her husband faced for taking their son, Gabriel, home after he died shortly after being born at 20 weeks gestation. The Santorums have been criticized by some for letting their children hold the dead baby; in the interview, Santorum said that "no one can tell me how to grieve."
"We brought Gabriel home from the hospital to have a funeral mass and to bury him. And so they twist it and make it sound like it was some crazy thing," she said in the segment set to be shown Tuesday. "We brought him home from the hospital to introduce him to our kids and place him, it was for the funeral mass and the burial. And what is so sad to me Jan is that no one can tell me how to grieve, and I'm not going to tell anyone else how to grieve. It's not right."
Santorum also said in the interview that the press tries to "corner" her husband on social issues.
"You know, every aspect of this race, any issue out there, he's brilliant," she said.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 09:52:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:40:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
So will I, but genius staff that he has, they didn't file for a full compliment for delegates throughout the state, so he can only win so many in Ohio, regardless of his total number of votes.
I mean, you do go to the Convention with delegates, not votes, right? Right?
You have to file for that? :huh:
If you're on a statewide ballot you should be able to win all of them.
45% in, Santorum up by 17k.
QuoteSantorum, by not filing delegate slates in some congressional districts and filing only partial slates in others, may be ineligible for up to 18 of Ohio's 66 delegates.
59% of the vote in, margin at 11k votes
45% of Cincinnati in. Santorum will win.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 10:07:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 09:52:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:40:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh so hard if buttjuice pulls it out in Ohio.
So will I, but genius staff that he has, they didn't file for a full compliment for delegates throughout the state, so he can only win so many in Ohio, regardless of his total number of votes.
I mean, you do go to the Convention with delegates, not votes, right? Right?
You have to file for that? :huh:
If you're on a statewide ballot you should be able to win all of them.
45% in, Santorum up by 17k.
QuoteSantorum, by not filing delegate slates in some congressional districts and filing only partial slates in others, may be ineligible for up to 18 of Ohio's 66 delegates.
:face: :lmfao:
61% in and the margin is back up to 13k. This will probably be called soon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 10:06:08 PM
Hey derspiess, here's one right up your alley.
QuoteKaren Santorum: Bringing Dead Baby Home Was Way to Grieve
Rick Santorum's wife says in an interview that their decision to bring their dead baby son to their kids wasn't "some crazy thing" and that it was a personal way to cope with his death.
In an interview with CBS News's Jan Crawford, Karen Santorum opened up about the criticism she and her husband faced for taking their son, Gabriel, home after he died shortly after being born at 20 weeks gestation. The Santorums have been criticized by some for letting their children hold the dead baby; in the interview, Santorum said that "no one can tell me how to grieve."
"We brought Gabriel home from the hospital to have a funeral mass and to bury him. And so they twist it and make it sound like it was some crazy thing," she said in the segment set to be shown Tuesday. "We brought him home from the hospital to introduce him to our kids and place him, it was for the funeral mass and the burial. And what is so sad to me Jan is that no one can tell me how to grieve, and I'm not going to tell anyone else how to grieve. It's not right."
Santorum also said in the interview that the press tries to "corner" her husband on social issues.
"You know, every aspect of this race, any issue out there, he's brilliant," she said.
Old News. I brought this one up months ago. They are really creepy.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2012, 10:09:04 PM
:face: :lmfao:
That's OK, Gingrich isn't registered in his home state of Georgia since he lives in Virginia now, and since his staff goofed by not putting him on the Virginia ballot, he couldn't even vote for himself.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 10:11:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 10:06:08 PM
Hey derspiess, here's one right up your alley.
QuoteKaren Santorum: Bringing Dead Baby Home Was Way to Grieve
Rick Santorum's wife says in an interview that their decision to bring their dead baby son to their kids wasn't "some crazy thing" and that it was a personal way to cope with his death.
In an interview with CBS News's Jan Crawford, Karen Santorum opened up about the criticism she and her husband faced for taking their son, Gabriel, home after he died shortly after being born at 20 weeks gestation. The Santorums have been criticized by some for letting their children hold the dead baby; in the interview, Santorum said that "no one can tell me how to grieve."
"We brought Gabriel home from the hospital to have a funeral mass and to bury him. And so they twist it and make it sound like it was some crazy thing," she said in the segment set to be shown Tuesday. "We brought him home from the hospital to introduce him to our kids and place him, it was for the funeral mass and the burial. And what is so sad to me Jan is that no one can tell me how to grieve, and I'm not going to tell anyone else how to grieve. It's not right."
Santorum also said in the interview that the press tries to "corner" her husband on social issues.
"You know, every aspect of this race, any issue out there, he's brilliant," she said.
Old New. I brought this one up months ago. They are really creepy.
I felt it was topical. And I like to rub feoutesuouses in derspiess' face.
Lol. Brian Williams just said "the Baltimore Colts released Peyton Manning".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:15:10 PM
Lol. Brian Williams just said "the Baltimore Colts released Peyton Manning".
:yeah:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:15:10 PM
Lol. Brian Williams just said "the Baltimore Colts released Peyton Manning".
NEVER FORGET :yeah:
So Ray Lewis will retire from the Cleveland Browns...gotcha.
Don't you have anything better to do, like lick Ron Paul mailing envelopes or something?
Just because he's the only one to actually visit this state doesn't mean I would vote for that nutbag.
79% in and Santorum has a 7,000 vote lead.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:38:45 PM
79% in and Santorum has a 7,000 vote lead.
If that holds it's a bit of an upset. Romney was at 61% on Intrade this morning and the momentum seemed to be going his way. I thought tonight was going to be his coronation :mellow:
So my lazy-ass brother, who is usually the most politically opinionated of the family, neglected to vote. On the plus side, I have a feeling he was leaning Santorum. The 4 of us who voted went for Romney.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:38:45 PM
79% in and Santorum has a 7,000 vote lead.
If that holds it's a bit of an upset. Romney was at 61% on Intrade this morning and the momentum seemed to be going his way. I thought tonight was going to be his coronation :mellow:
Damn, that's a shame. :)
Margin's down to 2800 votes with 85% in and most of the rural counties 100% counted so I think Romney will pull it out at the end.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:49:18 PM
Margin's down to 2800 votes with 85% in and most of the rural counties 100% counted so I think Romney will pull it out at the end.
Good news. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:45:50 PM
CNN is showing that Romney leads with Catholics. I find that hilarious. I guess I'm not the only one who looks at Santorum and say "What the fuck? That's not what I believe! What the Hell is going on about"
Not in Ohio. In fact, it's sounding like Catholic *Democrats* helped push Santorum past Romney.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:49:18 PM
Margin's down to 2800 votes with 85% in and most of the rural counties 100% counted so I think Romney will pull it out at the end.
Romney's back in the lead but it's not that simple. Nate Silver:
Quote11:05 P.M. Cuyahoga, Medina and Clermont
Mitt Romney has closed his deficit with Rick Santorum to about 2,500 votes. Can he get over the top?
He probably would if the only votes left were in Cuyahoga County, home to Cleveland, where Mr. Romney leads by about 7,000 votes so far -- but only 40 percent of precincts have reported. That could yield a net of 10,000 votes or so for Mr. Romney. But it's hard to say for sure because Cuyahoga contains both Cleveland itself -- where Republican turnout should be light -- as well as more suburban areas.
Mr. Romney should also gain votes in Medina County, which has reported very few results.
But apart from Cuyahoga and Medina, much of the results in Mr. Romney's more favorable areas have been counted; the Columbus area is about 90 percent reported and Cincinnati and its suburbs are about 80 percent reported.
One exception in the Cincinnati area is Clermont County to the west of Cincinnati. Just one of 200 precincts has reported there so far, and that precinct voted for Mr. Santorum, but it contains a combination of suburban and exurban areas that could yield mixed results.
Suffice it to say, this remains too close to call.
- Nate Silver
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:55:05 PM
Quote"We can be poor in spirit, and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow. How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that's where my values are and that's where my riches are."
--Ann Romney
:lol:
She didn't think that one through real well.
What a ditz. She should've said "For the first time in my life, I'm proud to be wealthy." ;)
A buddy of mine just texted me:
"Santorum always looks like he's about to cry, he's like Seinfeld;s whiny dorky brother" :D
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:18:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:55:05 PM
Quote"We can be poor in spirit, and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow. How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that's where my values are and that's where my riches are."
--Ann Romney
:lol:
She didn't think that one through real well.
What a ditz. She should've said "For the first time in my life, I'm proud to be wealthy." ;)
The Onion did have a vid today about how Romney had a better showing on Super Tuesday now that he has embraced how rich he is. Gives us all something to look up to.
Romney up 3700 votes with 88% in. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 11:17:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 10:49:18 PM
Margin's down to 2800 votes with 85% in and most of the rural counties 100% counted so I think Romney will pull it out at the end.
Romney's back in the lead but it's not that simple. Nate Silver:
Quote11:05 P.M. Cuyahoga, Medina and Clermont
Mitt Romney has closed his deficit with Rick Santorum to about 2,500 votes. Can he get over the top?
He probably would if the only votes left were in Cuyahoga County, home to Cleveland, where Mr. Romney leads by about 7,000 votes so far -- but only 40 percent of precincts have reported. That could yield a net of 10,000 votes or so for Mr. Romney. But it's hard to say for sure because Cuyahoga contains both Cleveland itself -- where Republican turnout should be light -- as well as more suburban areas.
Mr. Romney should also gain votes in Medina County, which has reported very few results.
But apart from Cuyahoga and Medina, much of the results in Mr. Romney's more favorable areas have been counted; the Columbus area is about 90 percent reported and Cincinnati and its suburbs are about 80 percent reported.
One exception in the Cincinnati area is Clermont County to the west of Cincinnati. Just one of 200 precincts has reported there so far, and that precinct voted for Mr. Santorum, but it contains a combination of suburban and exurban areas that could yield mixed results.
Suffice it to say, this remains too close to call.
- Nate Silver
Clermont County is to the east of Cincy, but whatever. My parents are there, and it sounds like most of their friends are Romneyites. I would think Romney won my precinct by a hefty margin.
On the actual West Side of Cincinnati, that has Santorum written all over it. They're all scruffy, working class Catholics over there.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2012, 11:21:54 PM
The Onion did have a vid today about how Romney had a better showing on Super Tuesday now that he has embraced how rich he is. Gives us all something to look up to.
I kinda think he would. He's trying to pretend like he's a regular guy and he's obviously not. Dubya was well off but he really sold the down home folksy stuff in a great way. Romney can't, it's antithetical to who he is. Americans won't buy into an obvious fake.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2012, 11:21:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:18:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 06, 2012, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 09:55:05 PM
Quote"We can be poor in spirit, and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow. How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that's where my values are and that's where my riches are."
--Ann Romney
:lol:
She didn't think that one through real well.
What a ditz. She should've said "For the first time in my life, I'm proud to be wealthy." ;)
The Onion did have a vid today about how Romney had a better showing on Super Tuesday now that he has embraced how rich he is. Gives us all something to look up to.
:D
FWIW, my post was a thinly-veiled swipe at Michelle O's own late primary gaffe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 11:27:16 PM
Dubya was well off but he really sold the down home folksy stuff in a great way.
That's because he never grew up.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2012, 11:27:16 PMI kinda think he would. He's trying to pretend like he's a regular guy and he's obviously not. Dubya was well off but he really sold the down home folksy stuff in a great way. Romney can't, it's antithetical to who he is. Americans won't buy into an obvious fake.
I agree. A commentator over here said that Romney's fooling no-one and should just get back into a suit and tie when he's campaigning rather than his endless parade of bad jeans. He'd be more comfortable too.
Hopefully someone wins. Apparently if the vote's within 0.25% then there's an automatic recount :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 11:36:25 PM
Hopefully someone wins. Apparently if the vote's within 0.25% then there's an automatic recount :bleeding:
:w00t:
Watching half the Republican Party being dragged kicking and screaming towards a Romney nomination is highly amusing.
I wonder where this road ends.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 06, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
I wonder where this road ends.
Obama, with 345 electoral college delegates.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 11:51:56 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 06, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
I wonder where this road ends.
Obama, with 345 electoral college delegates.
I don't really understand why the Republicans don't concede victory and rally for 2016. I don't really want Obama but none of these loons who none of the party really supports look viable. Give it up, boys.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 11:36:25 PM
I agree. A commentator over here said that Romney's fooling no-one and should just get back into a suit and tie when he's campaigning rather than his endless parade of bad jeans.
As long as he's not wearing mom jeans like Obama, he's fine :)
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 06, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Watching half the Republican Party being dragged kicking and screaming towards a Romney nomination is highly amusing.
I wonder where this road ends.
Like it or not, the GOP set up a long primary season for 2012 when they put the together the schedule and proportional award rules. In 2008, Super Tuesday had
21 mostly winner-take-all states voting on
Feb. 5. :wacko:
Finally, the advent of Super PACs means that candidates like Gingrich and Santorum, who would have traditionally dropped out by now due to lack of money, can keep going on with the help of a few billionaires.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
To a challenger from the center or from...the left? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
Ohio Republicans got the job done with the redistricting; instead of two, now there's one less Democrat in the Congress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2012, 12:29:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
To a challenger from the center or from...the left? :unsure:
Another leftie from the next district; they specifically redistricted them both to squeeze the two lefties against one another. GOP addition by subtraction.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:32:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2012, 12:29:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
To a challenger from the center or from...the left? :unsure:
Another leftie from the next district; they specifically redistricted them both to squeeze the two lefties against one another. GOP addition by subtraction.
I think we all win when we lose Kucinich.
A guess Kucinich cried into his wife's breasts tonight. :cry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fwikiality%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fea%2FElizabethkucinichgreenshirt.jpg&hash=d59aad6dc70af22745447db6cdddf3df7070e46e) (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_hYCKh29DLv8%2FSFsv1DAsysI%2FAAAAAAAAA2w%2FzKvmxBUFYBo%2Fs400%2Fkucinich.jpg&hash=58bf50c4f7cb406ac454a5039b48d3ecf98c27ff)
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2012, 12:35:16 AM
I think we all win when we lose Kucinich.
True to an extent, but that's not the point. :P
Oh, and all you Ron Paul faggot ass stoner librarian sympathizers? There goes Paul's recommendation for Secretary of
Defense Peace.
ZOMG BUT I LIKE SUM OF PAULS IDEAS
Morons.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 07, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
A guess Kucinich cried into his wife's breasts tonight. :cry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fwikiality%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fea%2FElizabethkucinichgreenshirt.jpg&hash=d59aad6dc70af22745447db6cdddf3df7070e46e) (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_hYCKh29DLv8%2FSFsv1DAsysI%2FAAAAAAAAA2w%2FzKvmxBUFYBo%2Fs400%2Fkucinich.jpg&hash=58bf50c4f7cb406ac454a5039b48d3ecf98c27ff)
Dayum. Is he a movie producer in his spare time?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 12:40:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2012, 12:35:16 AM
I think we all win when we lose Kucinich.
True to an extent, but that's not the point. :P
I know but while being hysterical we should keep reality in the back of our minds. :P
Quote from: Phillip V on March 07, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
A guess Kucinich cried into his wife's breasts tonight. :cry:
Could he find them?
Quote from: Kleves on March 07, 2012, 12:45:11 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 07, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
A guess Kucinich cried into his wife's breasts tonight. :cry:
Could he find them?
They're right under his nose.
:lol:
From tonight's concession speech. I miss her long hair, but still looking good.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F03%2F120306_dennis_kucinich_ap_328.jpg&hash=08910373435b1f7751497ff5b4cd66b331ed53aa)
She definitely has a talented surgeon. She's probably 20 years older than at first glance?
Quote from: Syt on March 07, 2012, 02:20:58 AM
She definitely has a talented surgeon. She's probably 20 years older than at first glance?
You think she looks 14-years-old at first glance? :huh:
Looking at her eyes in the first two pictures above I would have said she's in her late 40s. Those are old people eyes.
Quote from: Syt on March 07, 2012, 02:28:40 AM
Looking at her eyes in the first two pictures above I would have said she's in her late 40s. Those are old people eyes.
You'd have old person eyes too if you had to live with Dennis Kucinich!
Heh. Looking at his wiki page, Kucinich was born to the day 30 years before me.
But seriously, this is a bit phony:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274035,00.html#ixzz17agHfyjR
QuoteIt was love at first sight for both of them. Immediately after their meeting, Dennis Kucinich phoned a friend and said: "I've met her [my future wife]."
He was mesmerized to receive a business e-mail from Harper with her usual signature line from "Kama Sutra," one of her favorite films: "Knowing love, I shall allow all things to come and go, to be as supple as the wind and take everything that comes with great courage. My heart is as open as the sky."
He proposed at their second meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., and they married three months later. The actress Shirley MacLaine attended their wedding.
So I just googled the results, apparently Romney got 61% in Idaho and 55% in Wyoming but only 23% and third place in North Dakota. :hmm:
It was a satisfactory night for Romney, winning 7 of the 11 contests; not enough to end it, but he narrowly fended off Santorum's surge in Ohio just like he did in Michigan last week.
The media narrative is also a bit unfair, as McCain's performance was much weaker than Romney in many ways through Super Tuesday, but they easily crowned him.
Even with the Democrats, Clinton beat Obama in Ohio by 8 points on March 4, 2008.
However, the rest of March does not look good for Romney, it being filled with southern states.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Like he had a chance against Kaptur. That bitch can campaign.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 07, 2012, 08:53:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Like he had a chance against Kaptur. That bitch can campaign.
How do you think Joe The Plumber will do against her?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2012, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 07, 2012, 08:53:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Like he had a chance against Kaptur. That bitch can campaign.
How do you think Joe The Plumber will do against her?
She is going to give him an atomic wedgie.
15 term congresscritter with a record of bringing pork back to her district? Against a semi-literate Palinite retard? Easy win.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:16:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:45:50 PM
CNN is showing that Romney leads with Catholics. I find that hilarious. I guess I'm not the only one who looks at Santorum and say "What the fuck? That's not what I believe! What the Hell is going on about"
Not in Ohio. In fact, it's sounding like Catholic *Democrats* helped push Santorum past Romney.
Catholics actually have been going for Romney over Santorum. It's kinda funny actually.
Jean Schmidt: gone. That'll teach you to kiss the enemy. Democrats never win my district, so the House GOP just moved a slight bit to the right.
I'm curious how much spoiler voting is happening in this process and who is getting the benefit. Lots more primaries are open than I remember.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2012, 09:08:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:16:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:45:50 PM
CNN is showing that Romney leads with Catholics. I find that hilarious. I guess I'm not the only one who looks at Santorum and say "What the fuck? That's not what I believe! What the Hell is going on about"
Not in Ohio. In fact, it's sounding like Catholic *Democrats* helped push Santorum past Romney.
Catholics actually have been going for Romney over Santorum. It's kinda funny actually.
Why do you think that is Raz?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 07, 2012, 12:25:58 PM
I'm curious how much spoiler voting is happening in this process and who is getting the benefit. Lots more primaries are open than I remember.
I have not yet seen any reporting on how many Democrats voted in Super Tuesday's open primaries, such as Ohio and Virginia.
Last week, 10% of voters in the Michigan Republican primary were Democrats; half of them voted for Santorum.
That was part of the exit polling that was on CNN last night.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/loudly-catholic-santorum-loses-ohio-catholics/
Oh I misread CC post. I thought he asked why I thought that, not why that is. I think it's mostly because Catholic really aren't into a lot of the stuff Santorum was going on about. They (like me), look at him and say "That's not what I believe. That dude is nuts". American Catholics have always been somewhat weary of papal edicts and Bishops rulings. So American bishops angry at Obama doesn't really matter much. I've heard it said that American Catholics have a fairly protestant outlook, perhaps that is true. I suspect that not always taking what the Pope or some bishop says seriously is older then the US.
I suspect traditional catholics are doing what they have always done, voted their pocketbook. Santorum is leveraging his fundamentalism in the same way that protestant fundamentalists have done.
For a person of faith who's Catholicism is so important to him I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned the pope or stood next to a bishop yet. He's behaving as if his Catholicism is just another kind of american protestantism only this version has especially good pro-life credentials. Basically the same reason that american protestants are happy to have catholics on the supreme court.
Catholics are ipso facto not born again and catholic doctrine is per definition not fundamentalist so I don't think Santorum's "protestant" style born again fundamentalism appeals to any catholic who actually understands his own church's doctrine.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2012, 12:37:49 PM
Oh I misread CC post. I thought he asked why I thought that, not why that is. I think it's mostly because Catholic really aren't into a lot of the stuff Santorum was going on about. They (like me), look at him and say "That's not what I believe. That dude is nuts". American Catholics have always been somewhat weary of papal edicts and Bishops rulings. So American bishops angry at Obama doesn't really matter much. I've heard it said that American Catholics have a fairly protestant outlook, perhaps that is true. I suspect that not always taking what the Pope or some bishop says seriously is older then the US.
Interesting. To my ears he sounds more like a born again Prostestant and it surprised me a bit to learn he wasnt and I thought that might be the reason he was a bit off putting to American Catholics. But from what you are saying it seems the reverse - that he is in fact too Catholic.
I don't really know how Catholics in other countries operate. American Catholics are often like mainline Protestants rather then Evangelical born-again. Of course, I live in central Missouri so it may be different in other places. Viking is correct that Catholism is not really a fundamentalist faith.
For Instance talk of Hell is not really big. It's very rare to have a "Fire and Brimstone" sermon. It's also not anti-science. Hell, a whole field of science was dominated by Jesuits for a long time. Seismology.
American Catholics are still Americans and they don't fully trust foreigners. And that includes the Pope.
There has to be a significant "he's making us look bad" factor for Santorum among normal sane religious people.
I think the problem with Santorum is that while his ideology is in fact very catholic, his rhetorics is that of a firebrand preacher of a Jeremiah tradition protestantism.
Catholic doctrine is quite conservative, but it is mitigated (and I think that's where the "catholics are more liberal than protestants" opinion comes from) by the fact that the rhetoric is not that much about fire and brimstone (this, I think, comes from both the fact that there is a strong tradition of intellectualism in the catholic church and also that from the doctrinal point of view, confession and absolution is an important part of "catholic lifestyle").
Also, catholic church has always tried to take a more universalist approach, which means it was more tolerant of people deviating from its teaching on an individual basis, as long as they eventually confessed and regretted their sins (again, this is something that starts to change under Benedict XVI, who I think has a much more "quality over quantity" approach to the catholicism than John Paul II had).
So in short, Santorum is like the worst of both worlds. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:12:29 PM
So in short, Santorum is like the worst of both worlds. :P
I give him better than 3 to 1 odds he's had at least one dick in his mouth sometime in his life.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2012, 12:32:50 PM
That was part of the exit polling that was on CNN last night.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/loudly-catholic-santorum-loses-ohio-catholics/
The MSNBC dude pretty much said the opposite, and added that Democrat Catholics voting in the Ohio GOP primary heavily favored Santorum.
But I'd take CNN's word over MSNBC's, so you win.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:12:29 PM
Catholic doctrine is quite conservative,
On most social issues, yes. In everything else, not so much.
I found this to be pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/07/us/politics/exit-polls-boxes.html?hp
Santorum has only won Catholics in one state, and only won the college educated vote in one state (in both cases, the state was Tennessee). Santorum has never won the vote of those whose most important issue is beating Obama.
Quote from: Kleves on March 07, 2012, 01:42:20 PM
I found this to be pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/07/us/politics/exit-polls-boxes.html?hp
Santorum has only won Catholics in one state, and only won the college educated vote in one state (in both cases, the state was Tennessee). Santorum has never won the vote of those whose most important issue is beating Obama.
Why is Santorum locking up the youth vote?
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2012, 01:24:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:12:29 PM
Catholic doctrine is quite conservative,
On most social issues, yes. In everything else, not so much.
What other issues do you mean? Theological or stuff like e.g. economy and international politics?
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2012, 01:24:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:12:29 PM
Catholic doctrine is quite conservative,
On most social issues, yes. In everything else, not so much.
What other issues do you mean? Theological or stuff like e.g. economy and international politics?
Issues like poverty, homelessness, yes international politics, the Catholic church is pretty solidly liberal.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2012, 01:24:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2012, 01:12:29 PM
Catholic doctrine is quite conservative,
On most social issues, yes. In everything else, not so much.
What other issues do you mean? Theological
No
Quoteor stuff like e.g. economy and international politics?
Yep. And keep in mind I'm talking about the US, not Poland.
Is this picture real or shopped?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/64632_10150700571251083_598386082_11592523_228991957_n.jpg)
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2012, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 07, 2012, 01:42:20 PM
I found this to be pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/07/us/politics/exit-polls-boxes.html?hp
Santorum has only won Catholics in one state, and only won the college educated vote in one state (in both cases, the state was Tennessee). Santorum has never won the vote of those whose most important issue is beating Obama.
Why is Santorum locking up the youth vote?
Young people are more open-minded about things like close-mindedness.
They shopped it to flip the M and O kids around.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2012, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 07, 2012, 01:42:20 PM
I found this to be pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/07/us/politics/exit-polls-boxes.html?hp
Santorum has only won Catholics in one state, and only won the college educated vote in one state (in both cases, the state was Tennessee). Santorum has never won the vote of those whose most important issue is beating Obama.
Why is Santorum locking up the youth vote?
Probably for similar reasons that Ron Paul is fairly popular with "utes". They talk of less intrusive government and of less involvement in world policing, at least Paul talks of that stuff pretty heavily.
Today, Mitt Romney managed to insult The South by saying he finally learned how to say "y'all", and mentioned that for breakfast he had "cheesy grits".
Cheesy grits. Y'all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2012, 02:28:04 PM
Today, Mitt Romney managed to insult The South by saying he finally learned how to say "y'all", and mentioned that for breakfast he had "cheesy grits".
Cheesy grits. Y'all.
Was he wearing a confederate flag bandana inside-out as well?
y' all are screwed.
Romney needs to make a deal with Alabama and Mississippi who vote this Tuesday, acknowledging that they don't love him, but that it is time to fall in line.
He should be heartened by a poll that shows a tie in Alabama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/al/alabama_republican_presidential_primary-1775.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/al/alabama_republican_presidential_primary-1775.html)
and an 8-point Romney lead in Mississippi: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ms/mississippi_republican_presidential_primary-2163.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ms/mississippi_republican_presidential_primary-2163.html)
Then again, polls last week had shown Romney momentum in Tennessee, only to be false.
I am inclined to suspect that the two states will instead decide to swing behind Gingrich because he is almost forgotten, and the Republican electorate likes to keep things spicy.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 09, 2012, 02:39:22 PM
He should be heartened by a poll that shows a tie in Alabama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/al/alabama_republican_presidential_primary-1775.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/al/alabama_republican_presidential_primary-1775.html)
Alabama's been a tie for a while. About a week or two ago they prompted the headline 'Santorum comes from behind in Alabama three-way'.
QuoteI am inclined to suspect that the two states will instead decide to swing behind Gingrich because he is almost forgotten, and the Republican electorate likes to keep things spicy.
I think Gingrich's campaign has said if he loses Alabama and Mississippi then he's dropping out.
I say that Newt will take Alabama, Santorum takes Kansas, either one will take Mississippi over Romney, and the nightmare continues.
In Cincinnati we have the rare pleasure of getting political commercials for both Kentucky and Ohio. So Newt is continuing to run radio commercials. And it looks like Kentucky's primary is: May 22?! :bleeding:
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2012, 03:05:21 PM
In Cincinnati we have the rare pleasure of getting political commercials for both Kentucky and Ohio. So Newt is continuing to run radio commercials. And it looks like Kentucky's primary is: May 22?! :bleeding:
Apparently Newt's Superpac is still running ads in Iowa, Michigan, Florida and other states that have already voted. I can only assume it's some form of highly refined torture :mellow:
They're running the ads here too. Makes no sense. They're wasting their money.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Kucinich lost his primary :lol:
Not funny. :(
I mean, I'd never want the guy in a real position of power, but I liked that he was in Congress.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2012, 02:28:04 PM
Today, Mitt Romney managed to insult The South by saying he finally learned how to say "y'all", and mentioned that for breakfast he had "cheesy grits".
Cheesy grits. Y'all.
I had cheesy grits for breakfast. <_<
Matt Romney campaigned this week in Guam and is now in the Northern Mariana Islands, both voting today. Together, they award more delegates than New Hampshire.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/09/romney-trolls-for-votes-in-the-pacific/
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2012, 03:06:45 PM
Apparently Newt's Superpac is still running ads in Iowa, Michigan, Florida and other states that have already voted. I can only assume it's some form of highly refined torture :mellow:
It is like Jeb Stuart's 4 PM attack to support Pickett's Charge.
If Romney wins either Alabama or Mississippi, can we make the election stop?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2012, 03:09:28 PM
They're running the ads here too. Makes no sense. They're wasting their money.
Makes sense if you assume that Newt's entire mission at this point is to bring everyone else down with him. I mean, why else would he stay in the race?
Quote from: Phillip V on March 09, 2012, 03:34:48 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/09/romney-trolls-for-votes-in-the-pacific/
Trolling. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2012, 03:09:28 PM
They're running the ads here too. Makes no sense. They're wasting their money.
At least they aren't running ads here. We had a primary, but it didn't actually mean anything. I think the GOP is going to have a caucus to actually decide delegates. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why the GOP does anything.
Perhaps Newt believes that time is cyclical.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2012, 06:15:30 PM
Perhaps Newt believes that time is cyclical.
It's 2012, we are on the verge of a new cycle. :)
Santorum's look-alike daughter is next to him or right behind in damn near every group photo published. It's weird.
Kansas:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F03%2F10%2Fus%2F10campaign1%2F10campaign1-articleLarge.jpg&hash=b5d3a994e51e3bf078d9a2ac710e1059f6645e32)
It's to show he doesn't hate young women. Just harlots.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 10, 2012, 02:37:21 AM
Santorum's look-alike daughter is next to him or right behind in damn near every group photo published. It's weird.
Not that weird, she shares 50% of his genes. ;)
Romney wins 100% of the vote in Guam.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73834.html
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2012, 03:05:21 PM
And it looks like Kentucky's primary is: May 22?! :bleeding:
Yup. We're irrelevant. :)
I just saw this posted on another forum
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F8zk4li.png&hash=25df218447c1a71cca96b17ee312b1a41174644f)
Quote from: Kleves on March 09, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2012, 03:09:28 PM
They're running the ads here too. Makes no sense. They're wasting their money.
Makes sense if you assume that Newt's entire mission at this point is to bring everyone else down with him. I mean, why else would he stay in the race?
I think his idea is that he can win heavily enough in the South to stay in the race, maybe redefine the race more in his favor. So I doubt he wants to go anywhere until that's decided. But I saw polls in Mississippi that showed a close race, pretty much tied, between Gingrich, Santorum and Romney. I doubt that Newt can really count on the South. Hillary Clinton remained in the Dem race until June so even though this GOP race is getting tedious I don't think it's so unusual.
Quote from: sbr on March 10, 2012, 02:40:14 PM
I just saw this posted on another forum
So one good joke(Atlas) and 23 yawners.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 10, 2012, 03:05:51 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 10, 2012, 02:40:14 PM
I just saw this posted on another forum
So one good joke(Atlas) and 23 yawners.
I think that raises my batting average. :showoff:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 10, 2012, 03:05:51 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 10, 2012, 02:40:14 PM
I just saw this posted on another forum
So one good joke(Atlas) and 23 yawners.
They aren't jokes. They are pure, hot truth.
Some of them are pretty funny but by no means is that an exhaustive rendering of libertarian types.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2012, 04:36:25 PM
Some of them are pretty funny but by no means is that an exhaustive rendering of libertarian types.
What are the other ones?
It's deja vu all over again.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 10, 2012, 03:05:51 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 10, 2012, 02:40:14 PM
I just saw this posted on another forum
So one good joke(Atlas) and 23 yawners.
I thought it was very funny.
You know what would have made the whole thing, like, perfect? If they'd moved "Briefly Tempting" to the end, and had him repeat the question "Why
do I have to go Thailand?"
That's what's referred to as a callback.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2012, 05:33:23 PM
It's deja vu all over again.
Jesus Christ Yi, if you are going to say things, say things.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2012, 06:09:12 PM
Jesus Christ Yi, if you are going to say things, say things.
Seen this one before too.
Santorum wins Kansas, Romney wins Wyoming.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2012, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2012, 06:09:12 PM
Jesus Christ Yi, if you are going to say things, say things.
Seen this one before too.
Yeah, cause you have pulled this several times now. What, am I hurting your feelings or something?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2012, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2012, 06:09:12 PM
Jesus Christ Yi, if you are going to say things, say things.
Seen this one before too.
:lol: Stay smart. Don't get tempted or taunted into playing that game.
Agree that the libertarian cartoon was mostly yawns. Humor requires more than posting the most obvious possible comments on the most obvious possible foibles.
I suppose that it was designed for fellow members of the tribe, though, and they seem to enjoy it.
The best part of that cartoon was trying to figure out which one was Berkut. I guessed at least 4.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
The best part of that cartoon was trying to figure out which one was Berkut. I guessed at least 4.
I didn't know garbon was a Heinlein fan. That's cool.
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2012, 07:48:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2012, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2012, 06:09:12 PM
Jesus Christ Yi, if you are going to say things, say things.
Seen this one before too.
:lol: Stay smart. Don't get tempted or taunted into playing that game.
Agree that the libertarian cartoon was mostly yawns. Humor requires more than posting the most obvious possible comments on the most obvious possible foibles.
I suppose that it was designed for fellow members of the tribe, though, and they seem to enjoy it.
How long you going to do this passive aggressive thing?
"I won't respond to Raz directly so I'll respond to other people responding to him to get my two cents in".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
The best part of that cartoon was trying to figure out which one was Berkut. I guessed at least 4.
Heh. One of them kinda looks like him.
Whatever the reason, Obama's head-to-head general election numbers have dropped in the month of March after peaking in February. Romney has taken his biggest lead against Obama in Rasmussen tracking with a 6-point lead.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/obama_falling_romney_leads_48-42_in_rasmussen_poll.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/obama_falling_romney_leads_48-42_in_rasmussen_poll.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 11, 2012, 01:32:07 PM
Whatever the reason, Obama's head-to-head general election numbers have dropped in the month of March after peaking in February. Romney has taken his biggest lead against Obama in Rasmussen tracking with a 6-point lead.
It's the natural bounce to the primaries being stuck in the news cycle. It'll taper back off by the end of the month.
Maybe the Republican war on women is working out in Romney's favour?
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2012, 11:56:35 AM
Maybe the Republican war on women is working out in Romney's favour?
He's prettier than the other guys I guess.
Polls in both Alabama and Mississippi show a statistical tie between Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum. The narrative of this primary season has changed a million times already, but tomorrow will be another game changer with perhaps Illinois next week determining if Romney will have a strong competitor surviving into April.
AL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/al/alabama_republican_presidential_primary-1775.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/al/alabama_republican_presidential_primary-1775.html)
MS: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ms/mississippi_republican_presidential_primary-2163.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ms/mississippi_republican_presidential_primary-2163.html)
There's something unpleasant about Santorum that I can't put my finger on. It's like he's just off or something.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2012, 01:15:49 PM
There's something unpleasant about Santorum that I can't put my finger on.
You mean like his disturbingly backward views, paranoid outlook, and clearly repressed homosexuality?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 12, 2012, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2012, 01:15:49 PM
There's something unpleasant about Santorum that I can't put my finger on.
You mean like his disturbingly backward views, paranoid outlook, and clearly repressed homosexuality?
He's like Ned Flander's evil brother. I don't know if he's a repressed homosexual. I'm not really talking about policies, but rather the way he talks and acts. He just comes off as kinda creepy. It's like he's a bitter angry radical in a very subdued way.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2012, 01:43:47 PM
I don't know if he's a repressed homosexual.
Nobody talks that much fundamentalist smack and doesn't have dick cheese aftertaste.
Uh, I'll take your word for it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2012, 01:55:38 PM
Uh, I'll take your word for it.
Dude, it's as much a tell as sashaying around in eight-eye boots and cut-off jeans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2012, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2012, 01:43:47 PM
I don't know if he's a repressed homosexual.
Nobody talks that much fundamentalist smack and doesn't have dick cheese aftertaste.
The Onion does it again.
Heartbroken Santorum Condemns Gay Marriage For Two-Timing Jerks Like Nick (http://www.theonion.com/video/heartbroken-santorum-condemns-gay-marriage-for-two,27497/)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 11, 2012, 01:32:07 PM
Whatever the reason, Obama's head-to-head general election numbers have dropped in the month of March after peaking in February. Romney has taken his biggest lead against Obama in Rasmussen tracking with a 6-point lead.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/obama_falling_romney_leads_48-42_in_rasmussen_poll.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/obama_falling_romney_leads_48-42_in_rasmussen_poll.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gas-prices-sink-obamas-ratings-on-economy-bring-parity-to-race-for-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_story.html
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2012, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2012, 01:43:47 PM
I don't know if he's a repressed homosexual.
Nobody talks that much fundamentalist smack and doesn't have dick cheese aftertaste.
Jimmy Swaggart?
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2012, 03:16:26 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gas-prices-sink-obamas-ratings-on-economy-bring-parity-to-race-for-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_story.html
Interesting.
Has the American public generally held the president responsible for gas prices? What tools does the president generally have to address them (the gas prices, not the American public)?
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2012, 03:56:29 PM
Has the American public generally held the president responsible for gas prices? What tools does the president generally have to address them (the gas prices, not the American public)?
Depends on the president. When gas prices skyrocket under a Republican president, it is the free market at work. When it happens under a negro Democrat president, it's his fault.
The president will, from time to time, release some barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce tension on the market. A needless, unnecessary and ceremonial gesture.
When Republican presidents do it, it's OK. When negro Democrat presidents do it, Hansies flip the fuck out.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2012, 03:56:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2012, 03:16:26 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gas-prices-sink-obamas-ratings-on-economy-bring-parity-to-race-for-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_story.html
Interesting.
Has the American public generally held the president responsible for gas prices? What tools does the president generally have to address them (the gas prices, not the American public)?
When it comes to gas prices, the biggest tools the president has are the members of the general public.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2012, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2012, 03:56:29 PM
Has the American public generally held the president responsible for gas prices? What tools does the president generally have to address them (the gas prices, not the American public)?
Depends on the president. When gas prices skyrocket under a Republican president, it is the free market at work. When it happens under a negro Democrat president, it's his fault.
The president will, from time to time, release some barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce tension on the market. A needless, unnecessary and ceremonial gesture.
When Republican presidents do it, it's OK. When negro Democrat presidents do it, Hansies flip the fuck out.
Bush got blamed for high gas prices. Him, Cheney, and their connections to big oil. All that sort of stuff.
Quote from: KRonn on March 12, 2012, 05:25:37 PM
Bush got blamed for high gas prices. Him, Cheney, and their connections to big oil. All that sort of stuff.
Yeah, I noticed that during the 2004 election.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2012, 04:02:09 PM
Depends on the president. When gas prices skyrocket under a Republican president, it is the free market at work. When it happens under a negro Democrat president, it's his fault.
The president will, from time to time, release some barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce tension on the market. A needless, unnecessary and ceremonial gesture.
When Republican presidents do it, it's OK. When negro Democrat presidents do it, Hansies flip the fuck out.
Codswallop.
Algae!
Algae?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic5.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4f5e2642ecad040210000147%2Falabama-religion-evolution-mississippi.png&hash=e79136e8a87265e2723ba279ad4bcc7d50545b50)
Like I said, if he had only called himself Barry Dunham, he would've avoided all this "Muslim" nonsense.
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
Like I said, if he had only called himself Barry Dunham, he would've avoided all this "Muslim" nonsense.
Also if he had avoiding being black. Anyway, Alabama looks like it has bragging rights over Mississippi.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2012, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2012, 07:52:53 PM
Algae?
An Obama solution to our energy problem.
It obviously hasn't addressed the many rolling blackouts:
Quote from: Rick SantorumThis President's agenda doesn't just stop with oil and gas, President Obama has also discouraged new electricity generation - forcing many parts of the country to experience rolling blackouts. That means that millions of Americans will live with a power grid that is second rate, like a Third World country.
To many Americans, rolling blackouts meant throwing rotting food from freezers away, spending sleepless nights in houses where the air conditioning won't work, trying to find crying children in homes without lights. To add insult to injury, each month these Americans pay astronomical electricity bills.
http://ht.ly/9BjKQ
My questions are: how is Obama responsible for the San Diego electrical grid? Where else in the US are they suffering from rolling blackouts?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
Like I said, if he had only called himself Barry Dunham, he would've avoided all this "Muslim" nonsense.
Also if he had avoiding being black. Anyway, Alabama looks like it has bragging rights over Mississippi.
To be fair, Somalia has bragging rights over Mississippi.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2012, 04:45:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2012, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2012, 07:52:53 PM
Algae?
An Obama solution to our energy problem.
It obviously hasn't addressed the many rolling blackouts:
Quote from: Rick SantorumThis President's agenda doesn't just stop with oil and gas, President Obama has also discouraged new electricity generation - forcing many parts of the country to experience rolling blackouts. That means that millions of Americans will live with a power grid that is second rate, like a Third World country.
To many Americans, rolling blackouts meant throwing rotting food from freezers away, spending sleepless nights in houses where the air conditioning won't work, trying to find crying children in homes without lights. To add insult to injury, each month these Americans pay astronomical electricity bills.
http://ht.ly/9BjKQ
My questions are: how is Obama responsible for the San Diego electrical grid? Where else in the US are they suffering from rolling blackouts?
Wow, he's a nut.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2012, 04:45:17 PM
My questions are: how is Obama responsible for the San Diego electrical grid? Where else in the US are they suffering from rolling blackouts?
If Gray Davis could be responsible for it, seems only fitting to not let the President off the hook.
Saw my first RON PAUL sign today. That is some crack electioneering, putting the signs out after the primary.
It's for the general. :cool:
Results starting to come in. Santorum is leading both states in the early returns.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
Santorum - He's better than thinking!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2012, 08:26:30 PM
Results starting to come in. Santorum is leading both states in the early returns.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
...which is the worst possible outcome, of course. :wacko:
Quote from: Caliga on March 13, 2012, 08:31:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2012, 08:26:30 PM
Results starting to come in. Santorum is leading both states in the early returns.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
...which is the worst possible outcome, of course. :wacko:
Not if you want Obama to win. :cool:
What I want is a meaningful choice between two moderates. I won't have that if anyone other than Romney wins. Granted, one of the other two winning Mississippi and Alabama won't necessarily spell doom for Romney, but if Santorum wins both of these Newt might drop out and if all of the wackos go over to Santorum, Romney's path to the nomination gets more challenging.
In reality, I'll still probably vote third party like I usually do, but if Santorum actually gets the nomination I would probably vote for Obama. Not that it matters all that much because Kentucky is always safe for the GOP in the general.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
Like I said, if he had only called himself Barry Dunham, he would've avoided all this "Muslim" nonsense.
Also if he had avoiding being black.
Really? You think the the muslim thing is because he's black? I guess Colin Powell & Herman Cain dodged a bullet, then.
He's only half-black. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 13, 2012, 08:41:00 PM
I'll still probably vote third party like I usually do
:yeah:
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 08:47:09 PM
Really? You think the the muslim thing is because he's black?
Black, African, what's the difference?
Santorum's won Alabama, probably gonna win Mississippi.
Mississippi also now called for Santorum. Scheisse.
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 08:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
Like I said, if he had only called himself Barry Dunham, he would've avoided all this "Muslim" nonsense.
Also if he had avoiding being black.
Really? You think the the muslim thing is because he's black? I guess Colin Powell & Herman Cain dodged a bullet, then.
Yes, yes I do. I don't think Colin Powell is running for President. Neither is Herman Cain for that matter. "Muslim" is a more acceptable prejudice then "black". Calling Obama a Muslim is way to call attention to his otherness. He's not one of us. He's different. Alien. The difference is of course, that he's black, not that's he's Muslim (which he isn't). Same thing with the Kenyan thingy. It's a way to point out that's he's not like us. If Barry had a different name, they would use use some other way to draw attention to Obama's "otherness".
Romney was never going to win any true red states. This is more bad for Newt rather than bad for Mitt.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 08:19:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2012, 04:45:17 PM
My questions are: how is Obama responsible for the San Diego electrical grid? Where else in the US are they suffering from rolling blackouts?
If Gray Davis could be responsible for it, seems only fitting to not let the President off the hook.
A little to late to recall George W. Bush, ain't it?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:11:24 PM
Yes, yes I do. I don't think Colin Powell is running for President. Neither is Herman Cain for that matter. "Muslim" is a more acceptable prejudice then "black". Calling Obama a Muslim is way to call attention to his otherness. He's not one of us. He's different. Alien. The difference is of course, that he's black, not that's he's Muslim (which he isn't). Same thing with the Kenyan thingy. It's a way to point out that's he's not like us. If Barry had a different name, they would use use some other way to draw attention to Obama's "otherness".
On whom are the 60% of Alabamans that think he's Muslim trying to use this strategy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2012, 10:13:56 PMOn whom are the 60% of Alabamans that think he's Muslim trying to use this strategy?
I think Raz's point is that they are the ones on whom the strategy has been used.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2012, 10:13:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:11:24 PM
Yes, yes I do. I don't think Colin Powell is running for President. Neither is Herman Cain for that matter. "Muslim" is a more acceptable prejudice then "black". Calling Obama a Muslim is way to call attention to his otherness. He's not one of us. He's different. Alien. The difference is of course, that he's black, not that's he's Muslim (which he isn't). Same thing with the Kenyan thingy. It's a way to point out that's he's not like us. If Barry had a different name, they would use use some other way to draw attention to Obama's "otherness".
On whom are the 60% of Alabamans that think he's Muslim trying to use this strategy?
I'm trying to figure out if this is a serious question.
I believe that poll was just for Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi, not the statewide population.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:11:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 08:47:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 13, 2012, 04:30:31 PM
Like I said, if he had only called himself Barry Dunham, he would've avoided all this "Muslim" nonsense.
Also if he had avoiding being black.
Really? You think the the muslim thing is because he's black? I guess Colin Powell & Herman Cain dodged a bullet, then.
Yes, yes I do. I don't think Colin Powell is running for President. Neither is Herman Cain for that matter. "Muslim" is a more acceptable prejudice then "black". Calling Obama a Muslim is way to call attention to his otherness. He's not one of us. He's different. Alien. The difference is of course, that he's black, not that's he's Muslim (which he isn't). Same thing with the Kenyan thingy. It's a way to point out that's he's not like us. If Barry had a different name, they would use use some other way to draw attention to Obama's "otherness".
But isn't he really an other even if you just stick to his lifestyle? How many Americans can claim the cosmopolitan adulthood that Obama has had?
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2012, 10:17:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2012, 10:13:56 PMOn whom are the 60% of Alabamans that think he's Muslim trying to use this strategy?
I think Raz's point is that they are the ones on whom the strategy has been used.
Yes, the public doesn't not generally come ups with strategies to demagogue politicians and special interest groups. It kind of flows the other way.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:20:19 PM
But isn't he really an other even if you just stick to his lifestyle? How many Americans can claim the cosmopolitan adulthood that Obama has had?
Are you arguing that he really is alien and non-American?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2012, 10:20:06 PM
I believe that poll was just for Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi, not the statewide population.
What percentage of white Americans in Alabama and Mississippi self-identify as Republican?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:20:19 PM
But isn't he really an other even if you just stick to his lifestyle? How many Americans can claim the cosmopolitan adulthood that Obama has had?
Are you arguing that he really is alien and non-American?
Not in the least. However, I'm suggesting that being cosmopolitan can easily be posited as not one of us. I'm not talking about myself as I've done everything to hide out in cities (:P) but rather easy rhetoric. So I agree with the notion that changing his name wouldn't have helped but I don't think it is solely on a black basis, as even if that were waved and he was whitey mcwhiteson, there are other ways.
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
For whatever reason the muslim does seem to be an easy label to make stick. It is not all the black issue, it is part of the non-compromise and make the opponent an outsider type politics that is part of the narrative now.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:29:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:20:19 PM
But isn't he really an other even if you just stick to his lifestyle? How many Americans can claim the cosmopolitan adulthood that Obama has had?
Are you arguing that he really is alien and non-American?
Not in the least. However, I'm suggesting that being cosmopolitan can easily be posited as not one of us. I'm not talking about myself as I've done everything to hide out in cities (:P) but rather easy rhetoric. So I agree with the notion that changing his name wouldn't have helped but I don't think it is solely on a black basis, as even if that were waved and he was whitey mcwhiteson, there are other ways.
Everyone has a unique upbringing. For instance George W. Bush was raised by millionaires. That is fairly different then most Americans. Yet George W. Bush was not see as "other". On the other hand, Romney is having trouble. He also came from a wealthy political family, however he is a Mormon, and that carries the stigma of the "other". Some "others" are more "other" then "other" "others", though. :D
Quote from: PDH on March 13, 2012, 10:36:22 PM
For whatever reason the muslim does seem to be an easy label to make stick. It is not all the black issue, it is part of the non-compromise and make the opponent an outsider type politics that is part of the narrative now.
You don't compromise with people who are planning to kill you with death panels. The Republicans are acting perfectly rationally. If what they believed was actually true. If you thought someone was out to kill you, you wouldn't meet them half-way would you?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
Well then tell the GOP to stop. You are a registered member now, aren't you?
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
What if it is true?
Quote from: sbr on March 13, 2012, 10:46:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
What if it is true?
Hey now, this is a political discussion.
Quote from: sbr on March 13, 2012, 10:46:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
What if it is true?
With our political crop? Just models of incompetency across the board, not ultimate evils.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:52:17 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 13, 2012, 10:46:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
What if it is true?
With our political crop? Just models of incompetency across the board, not ultimate evils.
Who are you talking about? I don't think Romney is incompetent. Or Obama for that matter.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 11:07:33 PM
I don't think Romney is incompetent. Or Obama for that matter.
They are incompetent in regard to their ability to effect change and tackle the difficult issues that confront the US.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:52:17 PM
With our political crop? Just models of incompetency across the board, not ultimate evils.
It's always easy to just blame idiot politicians, but that's also almost always vapid. The real culprits are the people who whipped a large proportion of the population into utter frenzy, and made the country ungovernable. Democracy only works if the losers still recognize the legitimacy of the winners.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:45:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
Well then tell the GOP to stop. You are a registered member now, aren't you?
Sarah Palin flunked out of Northern Idaho while pursuing a degree in Sports Journalism. I don't have a whole lot of feelings for her other than contempt. I also think your attempted defense of prejudice against the President is, at the very least, strange.
No matter how you spin it, tonight was Romney's worst-case scenario: Santorum (not Gingrich or Romney) won both Alabama and Mississippi.
- Close, but failing to eke out a win, Romney looked weak due to aggressive spending and confidence as the "inevitable nominee" plus huge establishment support in the South. He even finished third behind Gingrich.
- Gingrich did not get his next "comeback". The likelihood increases that he will drop out and/or the base rallies around Santorum.
- Santorum outperformed polls and thus had "surprise" wins that will give him big momentum going into this week's Missouri caucus and next week's Illinois primary. He also fended off Gingrich (permanently?) from taking the "Not-Romney" title.
I expect Santorum will get a 5-10 point bump in national GOP polls, giving him the lead, while Romney stagnates at 30%-35% support. The establishment will panic even more, and we will see what happens to secure the "must-win" for Romney in Illinois next week. The possibility exists that the Republican base may decide to coalesce around Santorum and give him the plurality to start dealing decisive wins against Romney.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 11:34:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 10:45:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
It is juvenile to paint your political opponents as the ultimates in idiocy and hatred.
Well then tell the GOP to stop. You are a registered member now, aren't you?
Sarah Palin flunked out of Northern Idaho while pursuing a degree in Sports Journalism. I don't have a whole lot of feelings for her other than contempt. I also think your attempted defense of prejudice against the President is, at the very least, strange.
I didn't think I was defending it. :huh:
Quote from: citizen k on March 13, 2012, 11:15:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2012, 11:07:33 PM
I don't think Romney is incompetent. Or Obama for that matter.
They are incompetent in regard to their ability to effect change and tackle the difficult issues that confront the US.
What exactly would you like them to do?
Quote from: Phillip V on March 14, 2012, 12:23:52 AM
No matter how you spin it, tonight was Romney's worst-case scenario: Santorum (not Gingrich or Romney) won both Alabama and Mississippi.
- Close, but failing to eke out a win, Romney looked weak due to aggressive spending and confidence as the "inevitable nominee" plus huge establishment support in the South. He even finished third behind Gingrich.
- Gingrich did not get his next "comeback". The likelihood increases that he will drop out and/or the base rallies around Santorum.
- Santorum outperformed polls and thus had "surprise" wins that will give him big momentum going into this week's Missouri caucus and next week's Illinois primary. He also fended off Gingrich (permanently?) from taking the "Not-Romney" title.
I expect Santorum will get a 5-10 point bump in national GOP polls, giving him the lead, while Romney stagnates at 30%-35% support. The establishment will panic even more, and we will see what happens to secure the "must-win" for Romney in Illinois next week. The possibility exists that the Republican base may decide to coalesce around Santorum and give him the plurality to start dealing decisive wins against Romney.
I find the idea of Santorum presidency unpleasant to think about. Romney would do a decent job at it, I imagine. Gingrich would be hilariously bad. He's be tempting to elect just to see what kind of crazy bullshit would happen. We might be at war with Briton and attempting to colonize Antarctica by 2016.
Romney Wins in American Samoa(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fyipi.gif&hash=fdbbb7f660d6d5517297aec7a5656151f08b7075)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/03/13/world/AP-US-American-Samoa-Caucus.html
QuoteMitt Romney won the Republican caucus in American Samoa, picking up all nine delegates.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 14, 2012, 12:23:52 AM
No matter how you spin it, tonight was Romney's worst-case scenario: Santorum (not Gingrich or Romney) won both Alabama and Mississippi.
- Close, but failing to eke out a win, Romney looked weak due to aggressive spending and confidence as the "inevitable nominee" plus huge establishment support in the South. He even finished third behind Gingrich.
- Gingrich did not get his next "comeback". The likelihood increases that he will drop out and/or the base rallies around Santorum.
- Santorum outperformed polls and thus had "surprise" wins that will give him big momentum going into this week's Missouri caucus and next week's Illinois primary. He also fended off Gingrich (permanently?) from taking the "Not-Romney" title.
I expect Santorum will get a 5-10 point bump in national GOP polls, giving him the lead, while Romney stagnates at 30%-35% support. The establishment will panic even more, and we will see what happens to secure the "must-win" for Romney in Illinois next week. The possibility exists that the Republican base may decide to coalesce around Santorum and give him the plurality to start dealing decisive wins against Romney.
I hope Santorum gets nominated - this will ensure four more years of Obama.
Romney wins Hawaii Caucuses by at least 20 points.
Republicans who thought electability was the most important issue went heavily for Santorum last night, similar happened for Gingrich in SC. Romney's planning to change his first name to 'Not' in a desperate attempt to wrap the primaries up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 03:56:04 AM
Republicans who thought electability was the most important issue went heavily for Santorum last night, similar happened for Gingrich in SC. Romney's planning to change his first name to 'Not' in a desperate attempt to wrap the primaries up.
Clearly the people being polled don't know what the term 'electability' means, then. :bleeding:
Is it me, or does Mitt Romney more and more remind anybody else of Herb Tarlek?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 05:46:31 AM
Is it me, or does Mitt Romney more and more remind anybody else of Herb Tarlek?
I hope he throws Santorum out of a helicopter thinking he can fly. :)
I think it is Siege-factor. Remember, he didn't believe in the moon landings until Mythbusters debunked the "moonlandings were faked" crowd. If those two did an episode on evolution or who is a Christian many of the idiots would believe.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Garbon is right. Clearly, the Republicans would be far more open to Barack Obama if, like Sarah Palin, his daughter was knocked up out of wedlock by a rough, burly, muscular High School graduate.
I suggest you avoid a career in punditry or political journalism, unless your goal is to be a deep undercover agent saboteur.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 11:26:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:52:17 PM
With our political crop? Just models of incompetency across the board, not ultimate evils.
It's always easy to just blame idiot politicians, but that's also almost always vapid. The real culprits are the people who whipped a large proportion of the population into utter frenzy, and made the country ungovernable. Democracy only works if the losers still recognize the legitimacy of the winners.
:yes:
6% of Alabama primary voters and 4% Mississippi primary voters last night were Democrats. I wonder if they did any mischief.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 14, 2012, 08:41:43 AM
6% of Alabama primary voters and 4% Mississippi primary voters last night were Democrats. I wonder if they did any mischief.
I don't know. I don't think they come out at night very often.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 14, 2012, 08:41:43 AM
6% of Alabama primary voters and 4% Mississippi primary voters last night were Democrats. I wonder if they did any mischief.
The Romney campaign should avoid this line. It makes them look whiny which all politicians should try and avoid (it's one of Santorum's flaws too).
Also I'm not sure how much it matters. In most states about double the number of Democrats voted in Republican primaries in 2008 than have done in 2012, there were a number of cross-overs in the Democrats in 2008 too. It's normally one of those signs of an exciting, engaging close campaign. In this case perhaps not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 08:51:56 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 14, 2012, 08:41:43 AM
6% of Alabama primary voters and 4% Mississippi primary voters last night were Democrats. I wonder if they did any mischief.
The Romney campaign should avoid this line. It makes them look whiny which all politicians should try and avoid (it's one of Santorum's flaws too).
Also I'm not sure how much it matters. In most states about double the number of Democrats voted in Republican primaries in 2008 than have done in 2012, there were a number of cross-overs in the Democrats in 2008 too. It's normally one of those signs of an exciting, engaging close campaign. In this case perhaps not.
A line for analysis, not for campaigning.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2012, 11:26:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2012, 10:52:17 PM
With our political crop? Just models of incompetency across the board, not ultimate evils.
It's always easy to just blame idiot politicians, but that's also almost always vapid. The real culprits are the people who whipped a large proportion of the population into utter frenzy, and made the country ungovernable. Democracy only works if the losers still recognize the legitimacy of the winners.
Not sure how that really goes against what I said. Why would you recognize the legitimacy of the winners if you didn't respect any candidates to begin with?
Because respect and legitimacy are two separate things.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 08:59:31 AM
Not sure how that really goes against what I said. Why would you recognize the legitimacy of the winners if you didn't respect any candidates to begin with?
Because they won the election, for one. You don't have the like the politicians, but you have to recognize their power if they win it in free and fair elections.
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 08:59:31 AM
Not sure how that really goes against what I said. Why would you recognize the legitimacy of the winners if you didn't respect any candidates to begin with?
Because they won the election, for one. You don't have the like the politicians, but you have to recognize their power if they win it in free and fair elections.
For both of you, what exactly does recognition entail?
I'm not really seeing the importance in distinguishing recognition / respect in this context. Certainly one looks foolish by trying to claim via a birth certificate that they don't think a president is legitimate but on some level they are just providing the same signaling as someone who doesn't respect the president - we didn't want you and we don't support you.
I guess if we were at a place where those who weren't recognizing were actively trying to take the president out (as in some sort of coup) - that might be another matter but is that what the buffoons like Trump are trying to do?
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 10:44:16 AM
I guess if we were at a place where those who weren't recognizing were actively trying to take the president out (as in some sort of coup) - that might be another matter but is that what the buffoons like Trump are trying to do?
I suppose you get to that stage over time though. I think the difference is that legitimacy comes from respect for the process and institutions involved in a political transfer of power. They are sufficient to guarantee that someone who cannot be President cannot run, that the election will be free and fair, and so on. That's different from actually respecting the individual candidates and is far more important. It's what's lacking in unstable democracies or countries that are likely to suffer a coup because a candidate is 'illegitimate'.
I haven't followed the wider argument at all, so I've no idea what this is to do with. I'm just jumping in at the illegitimacy v respect point.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 14, 2012, 08:41:43 AM
6% of Alabama primary voters and 4% Mississippi primary voters last night were Democrats. I wonder if they did any mischief.
There are probably some remaining southern conservative mouthbreathing democrats that haven't gotten around to switching to the republican party yet. I'd be less inclined to think it was mischief in alabama and mississippi than michigan.
Quote from: Caliga on March 14, 2012, 05:10:46 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 03:56:04 AM
Republicans who thought electability was the most important issue went heavily for Santorum last night, similar happened for Gingrich in SC. Romney's planning to change his first name to 'Not' in a desperate attempt to wrap the primaries up.
Clearly the people being polled don't know what the term 'electability' means, then. :bleeding:
It is the deep south. What do you expect?
Quote from: Martinus on March 14, 2012, 02:26:57 AM
I hope Santorum gets nominated - this will ensure four more years of Obama.
A few days ago there was a respectable poll that put Santorum a point up on Obama. Granted, most have him behind, but he is often within the margin of error. Considering he will get a bump if he got out of the primaries, and another if he makes a popular VP choice, don't be so sure he loses.
I do think he would get crushed though.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 08:59:31 AM
Not sure how that really goes against what I said. Why would you recognize the legitimacy of the winners if you didn't respect any candidates to begin with?
Because they won the election, for one. You don't have the like the politicians, but you have to recognize their power if they win it in free and fair elections.
For both of you, what exactly does recognition entail?
I'm not really seeing the importance in distinguishing recognition / respect in this context. Certainly one looks foolish by trying to claim via a birth certificate that they don't think a president is legitimate but on some level they are just providing the same signaling as someone who doesn't respect the president - we didn't want you and we don't support you.
I guess if we were at a place where those who weren't recognizing were actively trying to take the president out (as in some sort of coup) - that might be another matter but is that what the buffoons like Trump are trying to do?
Recognition entails that some one has the right to be or do something. Respect is your personal opinion of the person.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:02:31 AM
Recognition entails that some one has the right to be or do something. Respect is your personal opinion of the person.
I wouldn't say that. You can have a low opinion of someone yet respect them due to their position.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 14, 2012, 10:51:09 AM
I haven't followed the wider argument at all, so I've no idea what this is to do with. I'm just jumping in at the illegitimacy v respect point.
Well yeah that's my issue as we aren't talking about any nation but the US. I hope we're not an unstable democracy. :(
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:02:31 AM
Recognition entails that some one has the right to be or do something. Respect is your personal opinion of the person.
I wouldn't say that. You can have a low opinion of someone yet respect them due to their position.
I would say I have a low opinion of Obama but respect him as after all he is the president.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:02:31 AM
Recognition entails that some one has the right to be or do something. Respect is your personal opinion of the person.
I wouldn't say that. You can have a low opinion of someone yet respect them due to their position.
The respect in that case is recognition of their position. The words do kinda get used interchangeably, (and I'm not sure if I'm using them right). You may have a low opinion of say, a judge but it would be wise to recognize the power he has over you if you are in court. I suppose that could also be worded as "Respecting his position". Or simply respecting the position.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:41:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:02:31 AM
Recognition entails that some one has the right to be or do something. Respect is your personal opinion of the person.
I wouldn't say that. You can have a low opinion of someone yet respect them due to their position.
The respect in that case is recognition of their position. The words do kinda get used interchangeably, (and I'm not sure if I'm using them right). You may have a low opinion of say, a judge but it would be wise to recognize the power he has over you if you are in court. I suppose that could also be worded as "Respecting his position". Or simply respecting the position.
I don't think that's true. That has little to do with whether you think a person legitimately has a position. I could see someone who respected Bush's position but thought he only got it through electoral shenanigans - and thus didn't legitimately hold it.
In fact, you could recognize that Bush or Obama had/has power but not recognize them as legitimate.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 11:29:56 AM
Well yeah that's my issue as we aren't talking about any nation but the US. I hope we're not an unstable democracy. :(
Fine, but as I said I think that develops over time. Legitimacy takes a long time to build up, but if people start disbelieving it then I think it's very difficult to recover.
The birthers or whatever are a small section, so it's not a big worry. But the consequences of what they're saying is dangerous and they shouldn't be enabled by someone like Trump, buffoon or not. But they are a very small group of people.
QuoteI don't think that's true. That has little to do with whether you think a person legitimately has a position. I could see someone who respected Bush's position but thought he only got it through electoral shenanigans - and thus didn't legitimately hold it.
This would be my worry. That minorities in both parties have questioned the legitimacy of the last three elections. That's an unfortunate trend in my view.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 11:51:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:41:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 11:02:31 AM
Recognition entails that some one has the right to be or do something. Respect is your personal opinion of the person.
I wouldn't say that. You can have a low opinion of someone yet respect them due to their position.
The respect in that case is recognition of their position. The words do kinda get used interchangeably, (and I'm not sure if I'm using them right). You may have a low opinion of say, a judge but it would be wise to recognize the power he has over you if you are in court. I suppose that could also be worded as "Respecting his position". Or simply respecting the position.
I don't think that's true. That has little to do with whether you think a person legitimately has a position. I could see someone who respected Bush's position but thought he only got it through electoral shenanigans - and thus didn't legitimately hold it.
In fact, you could recognize that Bush or Obama had/has power but not recognize them as legitimate.
I don't think you can.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
I don't think you can.
Why not? Bush clearly had the power to do things that ordinary people can't do and yet was seen by some as not the truly elected representative. (Florida voting machines? MoveOn?)
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
Only unplanned parenthood is appropriate. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 14, 2012, 07:18:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
Only unplanned parenthood is appropriate. :P
They just don't get it this year, do they? I love it. Keep this up, and Obama wins by 15%.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
I don't think you can.
Why not? Bush clearly had the power to do things that ordinary people can't do and yet was seen by some as not the truly elected representative. (Florida voting machines? MoveOn?)
Cause I said so, that's why.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2012, 12:24:26 PM
(Florida voting machines? MoveOn?)
Supreme Court trumps those.
I thought Republicans were for limited federal government and states rights. Do they really want a federal executive with enough power to "get rid" of planned parenthood?
Quote from: sbr on March 14, 2012, 07:28:16 PM
I thought Republicans were for limited federal government and states rights. Do they really want a federal executive with enough power to "get rid" of planned parenthood?
They want to get rid of Energy, Education and....um...there's another, hold on....
This is what it must have felt like to be a Democrat in the late 1970's and 1980's.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
LOVE HIM.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
LOVE HIM.
I'm sending you a Whitman's Sampler of feoutuseses this Kwanzaa. All different flavors.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
LOVE HIM.
Then I suppose his wife should get a refund on the $150 she donated to Planned Parenthood in 1994, huh? :lmfao:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:50:27 PM
I'm sending you a Whitman's Sampler of feoutuseses this Kwanzaa. All different flavors.
It really hurts me every time you say 'fetus' :weep:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:53:22 PM
Then I suppose his wife should get a refund on the $150 she donated to Planned Parenthood in 1994, huh? :lmfao:
No sweat off my sack. $150 sounds like a token donation, but I wouldn't much care if she had given $15,000. Your Community Organizer in Chief was probably still doing blow around that time. Do you hold that against him?
Anyway, I'm sure you read into the context of Mitt's statement-- that he wants to cut off federal funding for the 'Hood, rather than just skim a HuffPo headline.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
Anyway, I'm sure you read into the context of Mitt's statement-- that he wants to cut off federal funding for the 'Hood, rather than just skim a HuffPo headline.
They all say that. And since no federal funding is used by Planned Parenthood for any form of abortion services, SINCE ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW, please explain what his rationale would be to terminate federal funding for healthcare spending that amounts to approximately .00176 of the federal budget?
Can't be deficit reduction.
PP would exist just fine without federal funding. In order to "get rid of it", Mitt would have to go above and beyond to break them up. I don't know how that could legally happen.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 14, 2012, 09:42:32 PM
PP would exist just fine without federal funding. In order to "get rid of it", Mitt would have to go above and beyond to break them up. I don't know how that could legally happen.
If they defunded it, they would also lose whatever say they have over it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 08:12:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
Anyway, I'm sure you read into the context of Mitt's statement-- that he wants to cut off federal funding for the 'Hood, rather than just skim a HuffPo headline.
They all say that. And since no federal funding is used by Planned Parenthood for any form of abortion services, SINCE ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW, please explain what his rationale would be to terminate federal funding for healthcare spending that amounts to approximately .00176 of the federal budget?
Can't be deficit reduction.
There you go, bringing abortion into it again...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
Got a link to that?
Quote from: Jacob on March 14, 2012, 11:08:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
Got a link to that?
http://www.ksdk.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1505391677001
1:03
Also wants to get rid of Amtrak.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 10:17:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 08:12:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
Anyway, I'm sure you read into the context of Mitt's statement-- that he wants to cut off federal funding for the 'Hood, rather than just skim a HuffPo headline.
They all say that. And since no federal funding is used by Planned Parenthood for any form of abortion services, SINCE ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW, please explain what his rationale would be to terminate federal funding for healthcare spending that amounts to approximately .00176 of the federal budget?
Can't be deficit reduction.
There you go, bringing abortion into it again...
Lemme guess, your problem with them is pap smears, right, fetus boy?
I think it's unfair to assume derSpiess is letting his views on abortion colour his feelings towards Planned Parenthood. It's just as likely that it's a more broad hatred of women in general that motivates him.
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
I think it's unfair to assume derSpiess is letting his views on abortion colour his feelings towards Planned Parenthood. It's just as likely that it's a more broad hatred of women in general that motivates him.
His mother probably made him pee sitting down. That's how it usually starts with these types.
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
I think it's unfair to assume derSpiess is letting his views on abortion colour his feelings towards Planned Parenthood. It's just as likely that it's a more broad hatred of women in general that motivates him.
:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
lol, watching Obama's energy policy speech at PG Community College. Just totally zinged Rutherford B. Hayes. RUTHERFORD B. PWN3D.
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 10:20:43 AM
:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
I notice you didn't say anything about your mother-in-law. :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 10:20:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
I think it's unfair to assume derSpiess is letting his views on abortion colour his feelings towards Planned Parenthood. It's just as likely that it's a more broad hatred of women in general that motivates him.
:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
Using Languish as an outlet is OK, derfetus. You're safe here. :hug:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 15, 2012, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 10:20:43 AM
:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
I notice you didn't say anything about your mother-in-law. :ph34r:
Uh, yeah-- her, too.
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 10:20:43 AM:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
It's very kind of you to make exceptions for your immediate family :hug:
By the way, are you going to call them whore-pills when your daughter starts using them?
I am trying to figure out a rational reason for anyone to have any amount of angst towards planned parenthood (outside the abortion issue), much less the level of hatred commonly displayed towards them.
I mean, they provide reproductive health services to women. How is that such a terrible thing? How COULD it be such a terrible thing?
It is simply bizarre. I can only assume that absent rational explanation, there must be some rather irrational one...
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 10:20:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
I think it's unfair to assume derSpiess is letting his views on abortion colour his feelings towards Planned Parenthood. It's just as likely that it's a more broad hatred of women in general that motivates him.
:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
I don't think you hate women. :)
Charming bumper sticker:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infinitecities.com%2Faburner%2Fantiobama.jpg&hash=6474d817d407cc6ad66711620dba22fcbc16a050)
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 02:19:46 PM
Charming bumper sticker:
It's got nothing to do with race. That's only what racist Obama supporters think.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 10:29:32 AM
lol, watching Obama's energy policy speech at PG Community College. Just totally zinged Rutherford B. Hayes. RUTHERFORD B. PWN3D.
wtf. Insulting Ohio's finest. He lost my vote.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2012, 11:38:22 AM
I am trying to figure out a rational reason for anyone to have any amount of angst towards planned parenthood (outside the abortion issue), much less the level of hatred commonly displayed towards them.
I mean, they provide reproductive health services to women. How is that such a terrible thing? How COULD it be such a terrible thing?
It is simply bizarre. I can only assume that absent rational explanation, there must be some rather irrational one...
It gets better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 02:19:46 PM
Charming bumper sticker:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infinitecities.com%2Faburner%2Fantiobama.jpg&hash=6474d817d407cc6ad66711620dba22fcbc16a050)
Are these ducks having anal sex or something?
How would you know anything about anal sex?
Quote from: Faeelin on March 15, 2012, 05:24:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2012, 11:38:22 AM
I am trying to figure out a rational reason for anyone to have any amount of angst towards planned parenthood (outside the abortion issue), much less the level of hatred commonly displayed towards them.
I mean, they provide reproductive health services to women. How is that such a terrible thing? How COULD it be such a terrible thing?
It is simply bizarre. I can only assume that absent rational explanation, there must be some rather irrational one...
It gets better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Arizona is really trying hard to be the most despicable state in the US. And that's not easy, considering it has to compete with Texas.
Quote from: katmai on March 15, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
How would you know anything about anal sex?
If I knew about it, I wouldn't be asking that question.
Quote from: Jacob on March 15, 2012, 11:36:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 10:20:43 AM:rolleyes:
My mom, wife, and 11-month old daughter would be surprised to hear that I hate women.
It's very kind of you to make exceptions for your immediate family :hug:
Those are the women in my life :mellow:
But I doubt *anyone* who knows me would think I hate women.
QuoteBy the way, are you going to call them whore-pills when your daughter starts using them?
That's an inside joke between me, my wife & Languish. But to answer your question, I'd probably look Tue other way as long as she's 18 and isn't some "reproductive justice" activist like Ms. Fluke, who has the gall to expect a Jesuit university to subsidize her rutting.
Did anyone make a good decision to drop out of the race? Should anyone drop out in the future?
Until just before Iowa, Santorum was the only candidate without a moment in the sun. Then he crashes back to earth only to rise again as Newt melted down. Neither he nor Gingrich has money, sans a billionaire dropping multi million dollar contributions into Gingrich's super pac every few weeks, but they both have a decent shot of taking this to a floor fight in the convention (where they will lose since they are awful candidates). Why not stick it out and hope you land yourself a billionaire sugar daddy like Gingrich?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 15, 2012, 06:51:57 PM
Did anyone make a good decision to drop out of the race?
Cain, Perry, Bachman. Only "bad" decision really was Pawlenty, assuming he dropped out for viability and not personal reasons.
Gingrich should drop out if he'd prefer Santorum to Romney. Otherwise ride it out.
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
and isn't some "reproductive justice" activist like Ms. Fluke, who has the gall to expect a Jesuit university to subsidize her rutting.
:lol: It's been a month, and you still haven't read the testimony. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 05:44:01 PM
Arizona is really trying hard to be the most despicable state in the US. And that's not easy, considering it has to compete with Texas.
Quote"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don't live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."
lol, I think they said that in 1964, too.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 15, 2012, 07:05:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 15, 2012, 06:51:57 PM
Did anyone make a good decision to drop out of the race?
Cain, Perry, Bachman. Only "bad" decision really was Pawlenty, assuming he dropped out for viability and not personal reasons.
Gingrich should drop out if he'd prefer Santorum to Romney. Otherwise ride it out.
Cain was a joke.
I think Perry may have made a bad decision. He had a good resume, his problem was he came across as a moron. If he ran a stripped down campaign for a month where he intelligently put sentences together, I think he could have emerged as the anti romney after Gingrich melted down. We shouldn't forget how awful of a candidate Santorum is. I don't think that he would have been the guy to win, but why not spend a couple more months to find out for sure?
All the heavy-hitters for the GOP--the few of them there are--are all sitting out for '16. By then, maybe the GOP's psycho wing should peter out, and then the moderates and Jeb Bush can come out of hiding.
Then again, there will be some Democrat heavy hitters for '16 as well. Particularly Hillary Clinton. You never know about Russ Feingold, and I know for a fact Martin O'Malley is just chomping at the bit.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 15, 2012, 07:26:50 PM
. If he ran a stripped down campaign for a month where he intelligently put sentences together,
You assume this was possible. The months he spent campaigning suggest otherwise.
I wish Harold Ford Jr. would stop grazing at the MSNBC feed lot and reenter politics.
I think there is a rule in politics that, once you go journalist, you can never get back in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 07:33:54 PM
All the heavy-hitters for the GOP--the few of them there are--are all sitting out for '16. By then, maybe the GOP's psycho wing should peter out, and then the moderates and Jeb Bush can come out of hiding.
Then again, there will be some Democrat heavy hitters for '16 as well. Particularly Hillary Clinton. You never know about Russ Feingold, and I know for a fact Martin O'Malley is just chomping at the bit.
I think Christie is probably as heavy as they come.
For the Dems, I like to Cuomo. I don't know if Hillary will try for it. She'd be good, though. Woman has balls of steel.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 10:29:32 AM
lol, watching Obama's energy policy speech at PG Community College. Just totally zinged Rutherford B. Hayes. RUTHERFORD B. PWN3D.
wtf. Insulting Ohio's finest. He lost my vote.
Weren't Ohio's finest the National Guardsmen at Kent State?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 07:36:30 PM
I wish Harold Ford Jr. would stop grazing at the MSNBC feed lot and reenter politics.
Yeah, I don't know what's up with that, other than the free coffee.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 07:36:30 PM
I wish Harold Ford Jr. would stop grazing at the MSNBC feed lot and reenter politics.
Yeah, I don't know what's up with that, other than the free coffee.
Don't have to beg for money, people pay you lots of cash to sit around and bullshit. Sounds like good work.
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2012, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 10:29:32 AM
lol, watching Obama's energy policy speech at PG Community College. Just totally zinged Rutherford B. Hayes. RUTHERFORD B. PWN3D.
wtf. Insulting Ohio's finest. He lost my vote.
Weren't Ohio's finest the National Guardsmen at Kent State?
Correct. I forgot about them. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 07:14:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 15, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
and isn't some "reproductive justice" activist like Ms. Fluke, who has the gall to expect a Jesuit university to subsidize her rutting.
:lol: It's been a month, and you still haven't read the testimony. :lol:
I watched it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:20:12 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 14, 2012, 07:18:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Today's Mittism is:
"Planned Parenthood — we're going to get rid of that."
Only unplanned parenthood is appropriate. :P
They just don't get it this year, do they? I love it. Keep this up, and Obama wins by 15%.
50.
One-party state by 2020, man. And with the Randroids finally shouted down on the topic of monetary policy, Yi's gonna owe me a billion dollars. I'll pay off my student loans, and buy a Reese's two-pack. It'll be a fine Goddamned day.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2012, 08:17:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2012, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 07:36:30 PM
I wish Harold Ford Jr. would stop grazing at the MSNBC feed lot and reenter politics.
Yeah, I don't know what's up with that, other than the free coffee.
Don't have to beg for money, people pay you lots of cash to sit around and bullshit. Sounds like good work.
No shit. No premature aging there.
A lady I work with thought I was 18 the other day; and one of the 18 year old girls guessed my age as 24. :)
I swear, I should write a diet book.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 12:29:07 AM
A lady I work with thought I was 18 the other day; and one of the 18 year old girls guessed my age as 24. :)
I swear, I should write a diet book.
So your outside doesn't age while your inside ages twice as fast as normal.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 15, 2012, 10:39:11 PM
One-party state by 2020, man. And with the Randroids finally shouted down on the topic of monetary policy, Yi's gonna owe me a billion dollars. I'll pay off my student loans, and buy a Reese's two-pack. It'll be a fine Goddamned day.
If inflation gets to the point where our bet is worth a billion dollars, you'll be able to pay off your student loans with sofa change.
:P
While I was peeling potatoes today, I had to listen to one of my coworkers wax at length about how the U.S. government went bankrupt in 1933 (factually untrue), did away with the gold standard permanently in 1933 (factually untrue, it was in 1971), illegalized the private ownership of gold and silver (factually untrue, based on a misinterpretation of some similar if less ridiculous facts, but in any event we're well down the yellow brick road to crazy town), it had something to do with the Freemasons (unverifiable, but I'm gonna say factually untrue, also this man has a knife made of a far more valuable metal, steel), that money isn't real (it has no intrinsic value, but that is true about everything), but that gold and silver are the only "real money" (have value for the same reason fiat currency does), and he kept referring to a contract he appears to be disputing as a "bill of exchange" (a term I have never heard before).
I didn't know they built Paulites in black.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 01:28:30 AM
I didn't know they built Paulites in black.
Herman Cain?
Nah, this guy wasn't wearing greasepaint.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 01:28:30 AM
I didn't know they built Paulites in black.
http://hiphoprepublican.blogspot.com/2011/05/young-blacks-for-ron-paul.html (http://hiphoprepublican.blogspot.com/2011/05/young-blacks-for-ron-paul.html)
QuoteWhy do young black men find Ron Paul's message attractive?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F26%2FAfroman_Because_I_Got_High_single.jpg&hash=d461f8920cd811df2df7ae47a097b4a81fa27b4d)
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 12:29:07 AM
A lady I work with thought I was 18 the other day; and one of the 18 year old girls guessed my age as 24. :)
A woman in the supermarket asked me for ID to buy booze last night. Then she looked up and said 'Oh God, I'm so sorry' :(
I got carded at Midway last week when I tried to buy a beer. I actually laughed at the serving wench. :D
Most of my students guess my age as in the 20s somewhere, though usually a bit higher than it is.
But recently another class guess mid-thirties. :(
When I told them I'm 26, they protested, saying I couldn't be so young and also be balding.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 16, 2012, 08:52:53 AM
When I told them I'm 26, they protested, saying I couldn't be so young and also be balding.
:yeahright:
Freemasons are responsible for a lot.
It's true!
Also,
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd7lEF.jpg&hash=a9f1d497c83b4318d626e771a708c59b30117a68)
I like Santorum's comments on Puerto Rico...not. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 01:28:30 AM
:P
While I was peeling potatoes today, I had to listen to one of my coworkers wax at length about how the U.S. government went bankrupt in 1933 (factually untrue), did away with the gold standard permanently in 1933 (factually untrue, it was in 1971), illegalized the private ownership of gold and silver (factually untrue, based on a misinterpretation of some similar if less ridiculous facts, but in any event we're well down the yellow brick road to crazy town), it had something to do with the Freemasons (unverifiable, but I'm gonna say factually untrue, also this man has a knife made of a far more valuable metal, steel), that money isn't real (it has no intrinsic value, but that is true about everything), but that gold and silver are the only "real money" (have value for the same reason fiat currency does), and he kept referring to a contract he appears to be disputing as a "bill of exchange" (a term I have never heard before).
There are few half-truths buried in there.
The government did require all monetary gold (coins and bullion) to be turned in for conversion in 1933 and that wasn't reversed until the 1970s. In 1934, Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold to $35; although since most countries had gone a gold standard proper at the time (and the rest would by 1936), effectively this had little meaning. After WW2, Bretton Woods created the gold exchange standard whereby the developed countries all fixed their currencies to the dollar and the dollar fixed itself to gold at the $35 price. That was a true gold standard to the extent that the US honored convertibility at the central banking level until 71.
A bill of exchange is just a written instrument that instructs a bank to pay the bearer. These days, we call it a "check" - which is form of BoE that allows the authorized bearer to get the funds on demand.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html
QuoteRick Santorum wants to ban hard-core pornography
Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."
Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.
"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."
Santorum is not the first presidential candidate to take up the obscenity issue. In July, Michele Bachmann signed a pledge vowing her support of a constitutional amendment that, among other things, called for a ban on all pornography. (It also effectively called for a ban on same-sex marriage.)
The Atlantic wonders if Santorum's wide-scale crackdown on porn could actually work.
The Daily Caller found someone who thinks it could. "If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the site.
Wonkette's Rebecca Schoenkopf pointed out it's just another example of Santorum positioning himself as the extremely conservative choice for president.
"It seems that Rick Santorum has found time in his busy schedule of condemning 'radical' women for working outside the home and using birth control, and nagging English-speaking Puerto Ricans to speak English, and now is turning his hot, penetrating gaze to manfolk-bizness," she wrote.
Sorry Rick but women don't even feature in my porn, so why would it encourage people to be violent towards women?
Only one post-Tuesday poll so far (besides two other recent ones), but it looks like Romney may be carrying a stable lead for this Tuesday's Illinois primary.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/il/illinois_republican_presidential_primary-1593.html
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
Sorry Rick but women don't even feature in my porn, so why would it encourage people to be violent towards women?
Just glad to know violence against women and misogyny was so much lower back before internet porn.
He's inviting womyn to form an evil alliance with prudes to destroy pornography.
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
QuoteRick Santorum wants to ban hard-core pornography
He just lost the San Fernando Valley vote.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
A bill of exchange is just a written instrument that instructs a bank to pay the bearer. These days, we call it a "check" - which is form of BoE that allows the authorized bearer to get the funds on demand.
Reading between the lines of what Cal wrote, the term "bill of exchange" is a popular one amongst the various free man/sovereign citizen/de-tax wingnuts.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 11:46:53 AM
Reading between the lines of what Cal wrote, the term "bill of exchange" is a popular one amongst the various free man/sovereign citizen/de-tax wingnuts.
Bills of exchange were a dominant tool of finance in the 19th century. Much of banking activity, including central banking activity, revolved around discounting private Bills, and they were used by all sorts of business concerns to finance operations and trading activities. Nowadays much the same function is performed by the bond and CP markets.
I have no clue why the tax protest or freemen cultists would be interested in the concept other than its association with a time period in which the gold standard was the norm.
EDIT- one did occur to me. Bills have to be "accepted" (acknowledged) by the drawee - so if some sort of debt or contractual obligation is analogized to a BoE, the purported drawee in that instance could refuse to "accept" and thus not pay.
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:05:22 AM
I like Santorum's comments on Puerto Rico...not. :D
Romney is half-Latino. Hopefully, Puerto Rico is a big win for him this Sunday.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 01:28:30 AM
:P
While I was peeling potatoes today, I had to listen to one of my coworkers wax at length about how the U.S. government went bankrupt in 1933 (factually untrue), did away with the gold standard permanently in 1933 (factually untrue, it was in 1971), illegalized the private ownership of gold and silver (factually untrue, based on a misinterpretation of some similar if less ridiculous facts, but in any event we're well down the yellow brick road to crazy town), it had something to do with the Freemasons (unverifiable, but I'm gonna say factually untrue, also this man has a knife made of a far more valuable metal, steel), that money isn't real (it has no intrinsic value, but that is true about everything), but that gold and silver are the only "real money" (have value for the same reason fiat currency does), and he kept referring to a contract he appears to be disputing as a "bill of exchange" (a term I have never heard before).
There are few half-truths buried in there.
The government did require all monetary gold (coins and bullion) to be turned in for conversion in 1933 and that wasn't reversed until the 1970s.
Yeah, but iirc it went largely unenforced and had a lot of exceptions, including permission to continue to transact with gold if you could demonstrate a good reason.
QuoteIn 1934, Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold to $35; although since most countries had gone a gold standard proper at the time (and the rest would by 1936), effectively this had little meaning.
Silly billies should have floated it. Or maybe not. It didn't work out well for the UK, I suppose.
QuoteAfter WW2, Bretton Woods created the gold exchange standard whereby the developed countries all fixed their currencies to the dollar and the dollar fixed itself to gold at the $35 price. That was a true gold standard to the extent that the US honored convertibility at the central banking level until 71.
A bill of exchange is just a written instrument that instructs a bank to pay the bearer. These days, we call it a "check" - which is form of BoE that allows the authorized bearer to get the funds on demand.
Hm. I might have heard of it, and forgotten it.
Anyway, I told him to get a lawyer who did contracts (or whatever; I never inquired what the underlying factual issues were, because--well, you know, and also there's no meaningful advice I could give even if I wanted to since it's out of my field even such as it is--and he was nice enough to be vague, I think he just wanted to vent). Still, from what it seemed like, it 1)involved a fair amount of money and 2)he'd already fucked up trying to do it pro se.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 11:46:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
A bill of exchange is just a written instrument that instructs a bank to pay the bearer. These days, we call it a "check" - which is form of BoE that allows the authorized bearer to get the funds on demand.
Reading between the lines of what Cal wrote, the term "bill of exchange" is a popular one amongst the various free man/sovereign citizen/de-tax wingnuts.
You are correct. What Ide was describing was a run in with one of those people. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement
SPLC has a list of terms used by them http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-idioticon-a-dictionary-of-the
QuoteBill of Exchange
A fake check used to access the funds in the secret Treasury account supposedly set up by the government to monetize the value of each citizen's life at birth.
These folks are dangerous, they occasionally shoot at law enforcement. My advice to Ide, is to avoid this person.
What I want to know, is why you come across them in Canada? I would have thought that since they are based around a poor understanding of the American Constitution they would be an American phenomenon. As far as I know the US constitutions doesn't matter a great deal in Canadian law.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 16, 2012, 11:59:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:05:22 AM
I like Santorum's comments on Puerto Rico...not. :D
Romney is half-Latino. Hopefully, Puerto Rico is a big win for him this Sunday.
:huh:
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 16, 2012, 11:59:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:05:22 AM
I like Santorum's comments on Puerto Rico...not. :D
Romney is half-Latino. Hopefully, Puerto Rico is a big win for him this Sunday.
:huh:
Some of his ancestors moved to Mexico so they could continue to be polygamists. I think George Romney was born in Chihuahua. So far however the Romney campaign haven't made a great deal of this 'Latino' connection :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 16, 2012, 04:05:48 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 16, 2012, 11:59:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:05:22 AM
I like Santorum's comments on Puerto Rico...not. :D
Romney is half-Latino. Hopefully, Puerto Rico is a big win for him this Sunday.
:huh:
Some of his ancestors moved to Mexico so they could continue to be polygamists. I think George Romney was born in Chihuahua. So far however the Romney campaign haven't made a great deal of this 'Latino' connection :lol:
I know all that, but a gringo born in Mexico who left for States at 5 years old does not make Mitt Romney a "Latino"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 11:54:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 11:46:53 AM
Reading between the lines of what Cal wrote, the term "bill of exchange" is a popular one amongst the various free man/sovereign citizen/de-tax wingnuts.
Bills of exchange were a dominant tool of finance in the 19th century. Much of banking activity, including central banking activity, revolved around discounting private Bills, and they were used by all sorts of business concerns to finance operations and trading activities. Nowadays much the same function is performed by the bond and CP markets.
I have no clue why the tax protest or freemen cultists would be interested in the concept other than its association with a time period in which the gold standard was the norm.
EDIT- one did occur to me. Bills have to be "accepted" (acknowledged) by the drawee - so if some sort of debt or contractual obligation is analogized to a BoE, the purported drawee in that instance could refuse to "accept" and thus not pay.
Yeah, I made a mistake in relaying what he said. He was talking about a bill of exchange (a check) that they would not accept in payment of a debt (which means money isn't real!). He didn't actually refer to the contract as a BoE.
My understanding is this guy actually does have some significant assets--he works as a cook because he likes to work, and likes food, but I believe he's paying his kid's culinary education out of pocket--but is not what you'd call a sophisticated party (not dumb, if prone to some serious irrationalities based on ideological wish-fulfillment). He claims the law firm contacting him regarding the debt never served him a complaint and summons and will not reveal the name of their client (if he's
being sued by someone, I have no idea how this could happen, so my guess is he's not actually being sued even though he did speak of a motion to dismiss...
Edited out. See below.
NOW I remember. He knows the name of the plaintiff. He wants the court to compel the plaintiff to reveal the name of their Freemason backers.
You can see why I forgot. It sort of short-circuits the mind. I didn't want to remember.
Anyway, I'm sure that'll go fine.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 05:05:16 PM
NOW I remember. He knows the name of the plaintiff. He wants the court to compel the plaintiff to reveal the name of their Freemason backers.
You can see why I forgot. It sort of short-circuits the mind. I didn't want to remember.
Anyway, I'm sure that'll go fine.
Read up on my link from the SPLC. That's your guys beliefs. He's insane. May vote for Ron Paul, but just as likely isn't registered to vote.
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 16, 2012, 04:05:48 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 16, 2012, 11:59:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:05:22 AM
I like Santorum's comments on Puerto Rico...not. :D
Romney is half-Latino. Hopefully, Puerto Rico is a big win for him this Sunday.
:huh:
Some of his ancestors moved to Mexico so they could continue to be polygamists. I think George Romney was born in Chihuahua. So far however the Romney campaign haven't made a great deal of this 'Latino' connection :lol:
I know all that, but a gringo born in Mexico who left for States at 5 years old does not make Mitt Romney a "Latino"
Depends on messaging and money spent on marketing. For example, Obama made effective use of his white connection and how his "grandfather marched in Patton's army".
Once Romney gets the nomination, we will see the emergence of "Mexican Romney".
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
So if Hitler had escaped to Argentina, his children cannot claim to be latino? :(
As Latino's not a race, I don't see why not.
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
Most Latinos consider themselves white.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2012, 11:17:58 PM
As Latino's not a race, I don't see why not.
So if Latino was one of those mutable concepts we call races, then they wouldn't be able to?
Quote from: Phillip V on March 16, 2012, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
Most Latinos consider themselves white.
What exactly would you say your definition of Latino is?
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 11:41:58 PM
So if Latino was one of those mutable concepts we call races, then they wouldn't be able to?
If Hitler and Eva Braun had a child in Africa, it would not be black. If they had one in China, it would not be yellow. If they had one in Argentina, it could potentially be Latino.
Because that makes sense.
I suppose this would be like Obama talking about his "British" roots. Since his father was born in the British Empire. I don't recall Obama emphasizing that.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2012, 12:03:59 AM
I suppose this would be like Obama talking about his "British" roots. Since his father was born in the British Empire. I don't recall Obama emphasizing that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43132359/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-ireland-ive-come-home/#.T2QcEeSdySo
Quote from: Phillip V on March 17, 2012, 12:09:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2012, 12:03:59 AM
I suppose this would be like Obama talking about his "British" roots. Since his father was born in the British Empire. I don't recall Obama emphasizing that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43132359/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-ireland-ive-come-home/#.T2QcEeSdySo
Come on now. You're not even trying.
Mitt Romney is actually a Mexican. I think I've heard it all now this election cycle.
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 11:42:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 16, 2012, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
Most Latinos consider themselves white.
What exactly would you say your definition of Latino is?
Those who are the product of admixture of Spanish with Native American peoples (also, maybe and/or African slaves). E.g., katmai.
Versus Hispanic which just means tracing descent from inhabitants of post-Roman Hispania. E.g., me.
Romney's father and grandfather had to flee to the United States from Mexico as war refugees. They are Mexican-American heroes.
AP video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNYq5aKba8o
Quote from: Phillip V on March 17, 2012, 12:09:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2012, 12:03:59 AM
I suppose this would be like Obama talking about his "British" roots. Since his father was born in the British Empire. I don't recall Obama emphasizing that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43132359/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-ireland-ive-come-home/#.T2QcEeSdySo
:XD:
'Nearly three weeks after an unarmed teenager was killed in a small city north of Orlando, stirring an outcry, a few indisputable facts remain: the teenager, who was black, was carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles, some money and a can of iced tea when he was shot. The neighborhood crime watch volunteer who got out of his car and shot him is white and Hispanic. He has not been arrested and is claiming self-defense.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/justice-department-investigation-is-sought-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html
Quote from: Phillip V on March 17, 2012, 01:39:43 AM
'Nearly three weeks after an unarmed teenager was killed in a small city north of Orlando, stirring an outcry, a few indisputable facts remain: the teenager, who was black, was carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles, some money and a can of iced tea when he was shot. The neighborhood crime watch volunteer who got out of his car and shot him is white and Hispanic. He has not been arrested and is claiming self-defense.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/justice-department-investigation-is-sought-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html
That is interesting, but why post it here?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2012, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 11:41:58 PM
So if Latino was one of those mutable concepts we call races, then they wouldn't be able to?
If Hitler and Eva Braun had a child in Africa, it would not be black. If they had one in China, it would not be yellow. If they had one in Argentina, it could potentially be Latino.
How about African, Asian, and South American? :P
'Republican voters who prefer Newt Gingrich for the party's 2012 presidential nomination are as likely to name Mitt Romney as their second choice as they are to name Rick Santorum, suggesting the race would not tilt in Santorum's favor if Gingrich dropped out.'
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153308/Romney-Santorum-Tie-Gingrich-Voters-Second-Choice.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Feeiq3o4ibkufnal6w7htvw.gif&hash=1d4c34680fae3032c3b871ff98d24d0ac24a4dc1)
One thing I don't get with the Romney-Chihuahua connection is why it was never an issue whether George Romney was a natural born citizen. I know McCain was born in Panama but that was on a military base, I think, and his father was serving at the time - which seems a fair excuse. But that's also different from Romney, but so far as I know, despite running against Nixon, no-one made an issue of it.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2012, 11:04:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
Sorry Rick but women don't even feature in my porn, so why would it encourage people to be violent towards women?
Just glad to know violence against women and misogyny was so much lower back before internet porn.
I too was baffled when he claimed that contraception leads to unwanted pregnancies.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 16, 2012, 11:14:11 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
So if Hitler had escaped to Argentina, his children cannot claim to be latino? :(
If Hitler and Eva had made it to Argentina, had a kid who at age five moved back to Germany or Austria, who then had a son born there to a German mother, no It would be safe to say he couldn't go around claiming to be Latino.
:P
Quote from: katmai on March 17, 2012, 09:02:34 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 16, 2012, 11:14:11 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 16, 2012, 10:35:50 PM
Jesus PV, not at all comparable.
Obama you know actually has "white" lineage.
Romney has a dad born in Chiuahahua to two parents from Utah and was back in USA before he turned six.
Sure he has bunch of cousins living over there in Mormon insulated enclaves, but Mitt sure as shit knows he has nothing to stand on in regards to claiming to be Mexican.
So if Hitler had escaped to Argentina, his children cannot claim to be latino? :(
If Hitler and Eva had made it to Argentina, had a kid who at age five moved back to Germany or Austria, who then had a son born there to a German mother, no It would be safe to say he couldn't go around claiming to be Latino.
:P
Hitler and Eva lived in Argentina for 28 years, and then moved back to Germany with their 5-year-old son (plus six other children, oldest being age 15) as refugees from revolution. That son, who German classmates mocked as "Spic", then had a son born to a German mother. Many relatives were left behind that still live in Argentina with several generations stretching over two centuries. So yes, the grandson can go around claiming Latino roots.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 17, 2012, 10:47:08 AM
Hitler and Eva lived in Argentina for 28 years, and then moved back to Germany with their 5-year-old son (plus six other children, oldest being age 15) as refugees from revolution. That son, who German classmates mocked as "Spic", then had a son born to a German mother. Many relatives were left behind that still live in Argentina with several generations stretching over two centuries. So yes, the grandson can go around claiming Latino roots.
:tinfoil:
I think they died in the bunker.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2012, 11:11:22 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 17, 2012, 10:47:08 AM
Hitler and Eva lived in Argentina for 28 years, and then moved back to Germany with their 5-year-old son (plus six other children, oldest being age 15) as refugees from revolution. That son, who German classmates mocked as "Spic", then had a son born to a German mother. Many relatives were left behind that still live in Argentina with several generations stretching over two centuries. So yes, the grandson can go around claiming Latino roots.
:tinfoil:
I think they died in the bunker.
:lol:
I saw a documentary once about how they saved Hitler's brain. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 17, 2012, 05:37:17 AM
One thing I don't get with the Romney-Chihuahua connection is why it was never an issue whether George Romney was a natural born citizen. I know McCain was born in Panama but that was on a military base, I think, and his father was serving at the time - which seems a fair excuse. But that's also different from Romney, but so far as I know, despite running against Nixon, no-one made an issue of it.
Don't know. Wasn't born yet. Possibly cause Romney wasn't black.
Quote from: Caliga on March 18, 2012, 08:02:06 AM
I saw a documentary once about how they saved Hitler's brain. :)
Did it have any kids?
Romney wins Puerto Rico's GOP primary in landslide victory
Not surprising that Puerto Ricans heavily voted for the only Hispanic Republican candidate in the race. As of current counting, Romney won 83% of the vote compared to 8% for Santorum. The victory in Puerto Rico takes us one step closer to the powerful emergence of Mexican Romney.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/18/politics/pr-primary/?hpt=hp_t3 (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/18/politics/pr-primary/?hpt=hp_t3)
I thought he was half-Latino?
Romney seems to be gaining momentum in Illinois, starting the week with a double-digit lead in polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/il/illinois_republican_presidential_primary-1593.html
Quote from: Phillip V on March 19, 2012, 12:54:13 AM
Romney wins Puerto Rico's GOP primary in landslide victory
Not surprising that Puerto Ricans heavily voted for the only Hispanic Republican candidate in the race. As of current counting, Romney won 83% of the vote compared to 8% for Santorum. The victory in Puerto Rico takes us one step closer to the powerful emergence of Mexican Romney.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/18/politics/pr-primary/?hpt=hp_t3 (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/18/politics/pr-primary/?hpt=hp_t3)
Santorum also said that all Puerto Ricans should learn English. :lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on March 19, 2012, 12:54:13 AM
Romney wins Puerto Rico's GOP primary in landslide victory
Not surprising that Puerto Ricans heavily voted for the only Hispanic Republican candidate in the race.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
They voted AGAINST Santorum, not FOR Romney.
Quote from: The Larch on March 19, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
Santorum also said that all Puerto Ricans should learn English. :lol:
All Spaniards should as well. :P
Quote from: sbr on March 19, 2012, 01:08:03 AM
I thought he was half-Latino?
I think Phillip's half-bot.
Quote from: The Larch on March 19, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
Santorum also said that all Puerto Ricans should learn English. :lol:
To be fair, it probably wouldn't hurt if they did. Ditto for them learning Spanish :P
To be fair, so would the people of Mississippi.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 19, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
I think Phillip's half-bot.
He needs to re-focus if he's gonna catch Nicklaus.
Quote from: derspiess on March 19, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 19, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
Santorum also said that all Puerto Ricans should learn English. :lol:
To be fair, it probably wouldn't hurt if they did. Ditto for them learning Spanish :P
Oh Lord. Are they all like Tim, but mangling two languages? :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2012, 06:42:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 19, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 19, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
Santorum also said that all Puerto Ricans should learn English. :lol:
To be fair, it probably wouldn't hurt if they did. Ditto for them learning Spanish :P
Oh Lord. Are they all like Tim, but mangling two languages? :weep:
Who knows? Can't speak Spanish so we don't understand them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 19, 2012, 06:42:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 19, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 19, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
Santorum also said that all Puerto Ricans should learn English. :lol:
To be fair, it probably wouldn't hurt if they did. Ditto for them learning Spanish :P
Oh Lord. Are they all like Tim, but mangling two languages? :weep:
The Puerto Ricans I know can type and spell just fine, so no on the first part.
Seems that one of Romney's guys said something really stupid.
Here's what Raz meant to post:
QuoteARBUTUS, MD -- Mitt Romney said he plans to run on the same issues in the general election as he has in the primary in response to a top aide's comment likening Romney's pivot to the general election to an Etch A Sketch.
Romney acted to hastily control the damage resulting from comments by adviser Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN, which prompted a day's worth of attacks from Democrats, as well as Romney's Republican rivals.
Romney told reporters following his lone event today that while his campaign will change organization, the issues on which he'll run "will be exactly the same."
"I'm running as a conservative Republican," he said. "I'll be running as a conservative Republican nominee."
The comments gave Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich a new weapon to use against Romney, figuratively and literally illustrating their case that the former Massachusetts governor is only a conservative of political convenience.
The two men, who lag behind Romney in the delegate count, jumped at the opportunity to attack Romney after a senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, this morning compared moving into the general election campaign to the children's toy this morning, saying, "you can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again."
Both Gingrich and Santorum brought small Etch A Sketch toys to their afternoon events in the state of Louisiana.
"We're not looking for someone who's the Etch A Sketch candidate," Santorum said after pulling out the toy during his event in Mandeville. "We're looking for someone who writes what they believe in in stone and stands true to what they say."
Santorum even told the crowd it was "the first of what I'm going to now call my 'Etch A Sketch Tour of America.'"
"Given everybody's fears about Gov. Romney's flip flops, to have his communications director say publicly to all of us, if we're dumb enough to nominate him we should expect by the acceptance speech he'll move back to the left, triggers everything we should worry about," Gingrich said as he began his town hall in Lake Charles, where he appeared holding the toy. "I think having an Etch A Sketch as your campaign model, raises every doubt about where we're going."
The former House speaker handed the popular childhood toy to a little girl sitting in the front row of the Harlequin Steaks and Seafood restaurant and joked, "You can now be a presidential candidate." (Gingrich went on and autographed the toy for her after the event.)
Santorum said he purchased his Etch A Sketch at a Toys R Us store "down the way" while the Gingrich campaign simply said they bought the "Cars" themed toy today.
But the two candidates themselves were not alone in their purchases.
More than 2,000 miles away outside Romney's Arbutus event, Santorum's press secretary was passing out mini Etch A Sketches in the parking lot.
Holding the one remaining toy she had yet to distribute, Alice Stewart told reporters this "gaffe" from a top Romney advisor "confirms what a lot of conservative have been afraid of."
"The campaign acknowledged that his [Romney's] conservative credentials can come and go with the climate, just like an Etch A Sketch, and we can't have that," Stewart said.
Romney had initially refused to address Fehrnstrom's Etch A Sketch comments while asked several times on the ropeline following his event in Maryland.
"I'm not doing a press conference right now, OK?" Romney told reporters.
One group that does seem happy with all the buzz of the children's toy today is the Ohio Art Company, the Etch A Sketch manufacturer.
"Happy to see Etch A Sketch, an American classic toy, is DRAWING attention with political candidates as a cultural icon and important piece of our society," said Nicole Gresh, spokeswoman for the manufacturer. "A profound toy, highly recognized and loved by all, is now SHAKING up the national debate. Nothing is as quintessentially American as Etch A Sketch and a good old fashion political debate."
In the chart of stupid Romney victory-gaffes that's low.
No, what I meant to post was
QuoteSeems that one of Romney's guys said something really stupid.
Which worked out, cause that's actually what I did post.
Ohio Art thanks you for the free publicity.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2012, 08:40:25 PM
Ohio Art thanks you for the free publicity.
Yeah, now there'll be a run on these things. Better stock up!!
John Edwards linked to a "Millionaire Madam" prostitute ring in New York. He ran for President twice.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fbleedingeyes.gif&hash=5c26aea99994a4cbc0a78be0b5fa3853e8a8f3a8)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74350.html
I don't understand how that relates to romney.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
John Edwards linked to a "Millionaire Madam" prostitute ring in New York. He ran for President twice.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fbleedingeyes.gif&hash=5c26aea99994a4cbc0a78be0b5fa3853e8a8f3a8)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74350.html
Pft. Vitter still holds office.
I was up one morning with nothing to do so I watched some of that Scarborough show on MSNBC. The guest was John McCain's campaign director, brought on to to talk about Palin after "Game Change" aired. He came across as very well-spoken and thoughtful.
He made the statement that in the last 10 years both parties have nominated individuals for the office of vice president who were totally unqualfied to assume the office of president: Sara Palin and John Edwards.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
John Edwards linked to a "Millionaire Madam" prostitute ring in New York. He ran for President twice.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fbleedingeyes.gif&hash=5c26aea99994a4cbc0a78be0b5fa3853e8a8f3a8)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74350.html
His certainly would've been an interesting presidency. Question is at which point Dems would have abandoned him. Or if all his shenanigans would be chalked up to VRWC2 :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 02:30:01 PM
I was up one morning with nothing to do so I watched some of that Scarborough show on MSNBC. The guest was John McCain's campaign director, brought on to to talk about Palin after "Game Change" aired. He came across as very well-spoken and thoughtful.
He made the statement that in the last 10 years both parties have nominated individuals for the office of vice president who were totally unqualfied to assume the office of president: Sara Palin and John Edwards.
What about Cheney?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 02:36:55 PM
What about Cheney?
He didn't mention Cheney. He mentioned Palin and Edwards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 02:36:55 PM
What about Cheney?
He didn't mention Cheney. He mentioned Palin and Edwards.
Considering he once worked for Cheney.
Cheney may be unsuited, but he wasn't unqualified.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2012, 03:39:16 PM
Cheney may be unsuited, but he wasn't unqualified.
This. Being a dick doesn't mean he wasn't a supremely qualified dick.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2012, 03:39:16 PM
Cheney may be unsuited, but he wasn't unqualified.
This. Being a dick doesn't mean he wasn't a supremely qualified dick.
Exactly. Almost universally, you heard people talking about President Bush and Dick Cheney. In each case, their title followed by their last name.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2012, 07:10:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 02:36:55 PM
What about Cheney?
You're an idiot.
He was a vice presidential nominee over the last 10 years. It wasn't clear that plural meant both parties did something once or possibly multiple times.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 02:30:54 PM
His certainly would've been an interesting presidency. Question is at which point Dems would have abandoned him. Or if all his shenanigans would be chalked up to VRWC2 :)
I feel bad for John Ritter that I used to think John Edwards resembled him. Poor John Ritter, sullying him like that. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 07:12:03 PM
He was a vice presidential nominee over the last 10 years. It wasn't clear that plural meant both parties did something once or possibly multiple times.
That was probably a bit harsh but... Cheney was in fact extremely qualified to be VP. Him being a shifty asshole doesn't take away from his qualification for the office.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
John Edwards linked to a "Millionaire Madam" prostitute ring in New York. He ran for President twice.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fbleedingeyes.gif&hash=5c26aea99994a4cbc0a78be0b5fa3853e8a8f3a8)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74350.html
Pft. Vitter still holds office.
Louisiana does not count. Huey Long almost ate his way to the Presidency, for Christ's sake.
I think Palin and Edwards were qualified to be VP and President. They were wholly unsuitable candidates but that's because of their glaring extraordinary gaping character flaws, not to do with their experience.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 07:19:47 PM
I think Palin and Edwards were qualified to be VP and President. They were wholly unsuitable candidates but that's because of their glaring extraordinary gaping character flaws, not to do with their experience.
The dude's critique of Palin was based on her lack of understanding of issues, not her experience.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 08:18:10 PM
The dude's critique of Palin was based on her lack of understanding of issues, not her experience.
Which is fair. If it was Schmidt though, from all reports, he suggested her.
Even if we have that though only Palin's unqualified. Edward's is unfit for that, or almost any other, office.
Quote from: Scipio on March 22, 2012, 07:17:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
John Edwards linked to a "Millionaire Madam" prostitute ring in New York. He ran for President twice.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fbleedingeyes.gif&hash=5c26aea99994a4cbc0a78be0b5fa3853e8a8f3a8)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74350.html
Pft. Vitter still holds office.
Louisiana does not count. Huey Long almost ate his way to the Presidency, for Christ's sake.
If that's a viable path to Whitehouse, I think Chris Christie has a good chance then. Hell, that looked like that was the strategy of your former governor.
I had not even noticed till now, but Ron Paul actually won the popular vote in the Virgin Islands last week. :o
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/ron-paul-virgin-islands-caucus-results_n_1339944.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/ron-paul-virgin-islands-caucus-results_n_1339944.html)
Yet Romney gets most of the delegates. The fix is in. :mad:
Big deal. We already knew Ron Paul is dominating the virgin vote.
I figured that would be santorum.
Quote from: sbr on March 23, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
I figured that would be santorum.
Having sex once a year solely for procreation is still having sex.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2012, 03:39:10 AM
Yet Romney gets most of the delegates. The fix is in. :mad:
I'm not sure how the whole primary thing works in Illinois, but even though Santorum took second place he didn't have any delegates on the ballot here.
Quote from: Maximus on March 23, 2012, 01:51:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2012, 03:39:10 AM
Yet Romney gets most of the delegates. The fix is in. :mad:
I'm not sure how the whole primary thing works in Illinois, but even though Santorum took second place he didn't have any delegates on the ballot here.
His campaign goofed (like they did in Ohio & possibly other states) and did not get him on the ballot in some precincts.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2012, 03:39:10 AM
Yet Romney gets most of the delegates. The fix is in. :mad:
I don't think that this has been the first time that happened in this primary.
Watching Rick Santorum have a mental breakdown slowly over time is a hoot. It's like his brain is melting, like a communion wafer.
I think he had the breakdown years ago. What you're watching is his campaign break down, not his brain. :)
Dude is totally insane. Not in an amusing way, but in the way that cause you to become a serial killer.
All I know is that there's no way the GOP would have allowed this guy the nomination... he has no chance of winning as it is, but if by some miracle he did, he'd be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. :)
Well, if Ron Paul wins every delegate from now on in every race he can win the election with 57 delegates to spare.
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
All I know is that there's no way the GOP would have allowed this guy the nomination... he has no chance of winning as it is, but if by some miracle he did, he'd be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. :)
He's already been caught with a dead boy...
Quote from: Phillip V on March 26, 2012, 07:23:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
All I know is that there's no way the GOP would have allowed this guy the nomination... he has no chance of winning as it is, but if by some miracle he did, he'd be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. :)
He's already been caught with a dead boy...
:pinch:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2012, 07:22:54 PM
Well, if Ron Paul wins every delegate from now on in every race he can win the election with 57 delegates to spare.
How realistic is that scenario, though? Ron Paul hasn't won a single contest up to this point. To have win almost every remaining delegate from this point on will require an enormous change in fortunes.
Well, his plan currently revolves around a airplane carrying Romney crashing into a bus with Gingrich and Santorum in it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2012, 09:10:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 08:18:10 PM
The dude's critique of Palin was based on her lack of understanding of issues, not her experience.
Which is fair. If it was Schmidt though, from all reports, he suggested her.
Even if we have that though only Palin's unqualified. Edward's is unfit for that, or almost any other, office.
Indeed. The only office Edwards is fit for is God-Emperor.
When I heard about Santorum "cursing out" a reporter I figured it would make him look bad/worse. But I have to say he went up slightly in my book, and not just because it's an NYT reporter.
Video almost halfway down: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404222-503544/santorum-romney-worst-republican-to-face-obama/
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 02:19:30 PM
But I have to say he went up slightly in my book, and not just because it's an NYT reporter.
Oh, please; it's exactly because it was a NYT reporter. Stop lying.
And it could've been a reporter from the National Inquirer, he was still an asshole about it. That's not how a candidate should act, unless he's clinically insane, like Santorum.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 02:45:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 02:19:30 PM
But I have to say he went up slightly in my book, and not just because it's an NYT reporter.
Oh, please; it's exactly because it was a NYT reporter. Stop lying.
I SAID IT'S NOT. MOVE ALONG.
QuoteAnd it could've been a reporter from the National Inquirer, he was still an asshole about it. That's not how a candidate should act, unless he's clinically insane, like Santorum.
I think he actually kept his composure pretty well, and he was correct to literally call bullshit on a reporter distorting his words. And as I've mentioned before, I'm not a particularly big fan of Santorum.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 02:45:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 02:19:30 PM
But I have to say he went up slightly in my book, and not just because it's an NYT reporter.
Oh, please; it's exactly because it was a NYT reporter. Stop lying.
And it could've been a reporter from the National Inquirer, he was still an asshole about it. That's not how a candidate should act, unless he's clinically insane, like Santorum.
Derspeiss was also impressed when Santorum said he didn't want to make the lives of black people better.
Only two polls so far, but it looks like Santorum will not be able challenge Romney in the Wisconsin primary next week, leaving his next possible victory far away on April 24 in Pennsylvania.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_republican_presidential_primary-1601.html
QuoteAppearing on CNN, Romney said Russia "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very very troubling indeed."
He noted that "Russia continues to support Syria, supports Iran, has fought us with crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very very troubling, very alarming. This is a president who is telling us one thing and is doing something else."
Way to go, Mitt.
Here's my favorite non-expletive Santorum quote of the last two days:
Quote"Rights should not, cannot, be created by a government because every time government creates a right, they can take that right away, and they can force you, as you've seen with Obamacare, they can force you to do something that are against what you believe is right for you and your family. They can do things that you believe are against the tenets and teachings of your faith, and that's not what rights are all about."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:02:06 PM
QuoteAppearing on CNN, Romney said Russia "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very very troubling indeed."
He noted that "Russia continues to support Syria, supports Iran, has fought us with crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very very troubling, very alarming. This is a president who is telling us one thing and is doing something else."
Way to go, Mitt.
Thought you hated China more.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2012, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:02:06 PM
QuoteAppearing on CNN, Romney said Russia "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very very troubling indeed."
He noted that "Russia continues to support Syria, supports Iran, has fought us with crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very very troubling, very alarming. This is a president who is telling us one thing and is doing something else."
Way to go, Mitt.
Thought you hated China more.
Oh, did I forget my [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags, dickfuck?
Well, as you also hate Russia that would have brought some needed clarity...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2012, 05:19:10 PM
Well, as you also hate Russia that would have brought some needed clarity...
There is only one Numbah One Foe and that is
Monor China.
Our number one foe is Iran. We still owe them for '79.
I'd split the difference. China is our greatest rival, Iran our greatest enemy.
I see China as a rival, but not necessarily an enemy. They may become one, but they aren't actively hostile to us.
Sounds like someone has been studying Herman Cain's geopolitical strategery map.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2012, 06:59:47 PM
Sounds like someone has been studying Herman Cain's geopolitical strategery map.
I'm a big fan of his throwing goldfish on the ground efforts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:02:06 PM
QuoteAppearing on CNN, Romney said Russia "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very very troubling indeed."
He noted that "Russia continues to support Syria, supports Iran, has fought us with crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very very troubling, very alarming. This is a president who is telling us one thing and is doing something else."
Way to go, Mitt.
:wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:13:27 PM
Here's my favorite non-expletive Santorum quote of the last two days:
Quote"Rights should not, cannot, be created by a government because every time government creates a right, they can take that right away, and they can force you, as you've seen with Obamacare, they can force you to do something that are against what you believe is right for you and your family. They can do things that you believe are against the tenets and teachings of your faith, and that's not what rights are all about."
To be fair, God doesn't seem to be a big proponent of healthcare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:20:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2012, 05:19:10 PM
Well, as you also hate Russia that would have brought some needed clarity...
There is only one Numbah One Foe and that is Monor China.
I'm glad he's here. If he weren't, you and me wouldn't have anybody to yell at. If Mono didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
I see China as a rival, but not necessarily an enemy. They may become one, but they aren't actively hostile to us.
They're hostile to the international worker.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 27, 2012, 10:11:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 05:20:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2012, 05:19:10 PM
Well, as you also hate Russia that would have brought some needed clarity...
There is only one Numbah One Foe and that is Monor China.
I'm glad he's here. If he weren't, you and me wouldn't have anybody to yell at. If Mono didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.
Maybe we did. :ph34r:
He is pretty cartoonish.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
I see China as a rival, but not necessarily an enemy. They may become one, but they aren't actively hostile to us.
Oh no? The half million attempts a month they make trying to get into my company's electrical grid says otherwise, retard.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 12:03:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
I see China as a rival, but not necessarily an enemy. They may become one, but they aren't actively hostile to us.
Oh no? The half million attempts a month they make trying to get into my company's electrical grid says otherwise, retard.
They ain't shooting at us, or taking hostages. I suspect the Israelis and French try to hack in the US computers as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2012, 12:31:21 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 28, 2012, 12:03:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
I see China as a rival, but not necessarily an enemy. They may become one, but they aren't actively hostile to us.
Oh no? The half million attempts a month they make trying to get into my company's electrical grid says otherwise, retard.
They ain't shooting at us, or taking hostages. I suspect the Israelis and French try to hack in the US computers as well.
Unless they're spoofing IPs from the mainland, I don't think so. Most of the European hits are from Russia and former Soviet states, and Turkey.
Hell, half the PRC hits don't even try to hide where they're coming from anymore. Their hubris is amazing.
Maybe it'd be less of a problem if gov't employees stopped looking at "Chinese anal sluts gangbang" websites at work.
Latest poll has Romney and Santorum at a statistical tie in Pennsylvania going into their April 24 primary. Will Pennsylvanian voters vote Santorum to death like they did in 2006?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-heading-for-a-loss-in-pennsylvania/2012/03/28/gIQA9FCBgS_blog.html
He's already dead. Tim has spoken.
Maybe Mitt Romney's oddest statement:
QuoteDon't Pick Mitt Romney As Your Child's Godfather
By Alex Klein
We all knew that the former governor of Massachusetts had flirted with pro-choice views — but not to this extent.
In an interview with Hugh Hewitt today, Mitt Romney fielded what must have been the seven millionth question about his connection to Obamacare. Why not take a swing? Mitt has a multi-million dollar campaign, a team of sharp advisers, and hours upon hours of rehearsed answers, policy platforms, soundbites, and media spin in the bag. It's the same question he's been getting every other day for the past two years. What could be the harm?
QuoteHewitt: Yesterday, the president's campaign manager said that you are the godfather of Obamacare ... if that's who you are, can you make the Democrats an offer they can't refuse to repeal it?
Romney: (laughing) That's a great idea. We counted, by the way, that Mr. Plouffe is the Rumpelstiltskin of trying to turn straw into gold. He will not be successful. I can tell you one thing. If I'm the godfather of this thing, then it gives me the right to kill it.
The nation's most honest politician strikes again.
:ph34r:
Must be a Mormon thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2012, 05:55:24 PM
Maybe Mitt Romney's oddest statement:
QuoteDon't Pick Mitt Romney As Your Child's Godfather
By Alex Klein
We all knew that the former governor of Massachusetts had flirted with pro-choice views — but not to this extent.
In an interview with Hugh Hewitt today, Mitt Romney fielded what must have been the seven millionth question about his connection to Obamacare. Why not take a swing? Mitt has a multi-million dollar campaign, a team of sharp advisers, and hours upon hours of rehearsed answers, policy platforms, soundbites, and media spin in the bag. It's the same question he's been getting every other day for the past two years. What could be the harm?
QuoteHewitt: Yesterday, the president's campaign manager said that you are the godfather of Obamacare ... if that's who you are, can you make the Democrats an offer they can't refuse to repeal it?
Romney: (laughing) That's a great idea. We counted, by the way, that Mr. Plouffe is the Rumpelstiltskin of trying to turn straw into gold. He will not be successful. I can tell you one thing. If I'm the godfather of this thing, then it gives me the right to kill it.
The nation's most honest politician strikes again.
:ph34r:
Maybe he means The Godfather.
Poppy Bush and Marco Rubio endorsed Romney today.
Race was already over last week, so late endorsements = :zzz
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 28, 2012, 08:01:53 AM
Maybe it'd be less of a problem if gov't employees stopped looking at "Chinese anal sluts gangbang" websites at work.
Freedom isn't free.
According to Ann Romney, if you unzip Mitt Romney, he's not stiff. :hmm: I did not need to know that.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ann-romney-unzip-him-let-real-mitt-romney-170357495.html
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2012, 03:12:02 PM
According to Ann Romney, if you unzip Mitt Romney, he's not stiff. :hmm: I did not need to know that.
Would you prefer it if she told you he was?
Seems like women voters are trending towards Obama.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F431880%2FImages%2Fwomen%2520vote.png&hash=1615fd443912ec5422bbcb9a142f2fc28ea31e2d)
I wonder why... :hmm:
Yay Santorum.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
I wonder why... :hmm:
The Republicans brilliant strategy of bringing up birth control and over-the-top abortion requirements right at this moment probably has something to do with it.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2012, 05:12:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
I wonder why... :hmm:
The Republicans brilliant strategy of bringing up birth control and over-the-top abortion requirements right at this moment probably has something to do with it.
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
Anyhow... is this the kind of thing that Romney will be able to counteract, or is this something people will remember for a while?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Seems like women voters are trending towards Obama.
I wonder why... :hmm:
Because Obama is stiff when unzipped? :unsure: Err, I assume that he is. :unsure:
Women have always voted Democrat. Obama beat McCain by 20 points among women.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2012, 05:32:03 PM
Women have always voted Democrat. Obama beat McCain by 20 points among women.
That much, eh? I didn't realize.
You figure the margin will shrink or grow against Romney?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:33:39 PM
That much, eh? I didn't realize.
You figure the margin will shrink or grow against Romney?
I figure it will stay about the same.
Speaking of assimilation, do you say "aboot" not too?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2012, 05:32:03 PM
Women have always voted Democrat. Obama beat McCain by 20 points among women.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
In 2008 it was 56%-43%... 13. In 2004 it was 51%-48%. Women haven't always voted in such huge amounts for Democrats.
+20 and +26 Dem vs Rep for women is a significant improvement from 2008 if it holds, but I doubt that it will. If Romney can shut his party up about abortion and birth control for ~4 months then he'll be fine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2012, 05:35:43 PMSpeaking of assimilation, do you say "aboot" not too?
Well, I most certainly don't say "ah-bauwt" like Americans do... so I guess you'd think so.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
I HAS A STALKER!! :w00t:
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
I HAS A STALKER!! :w00t:
*high five*
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
I HAS A STALKER!! :w00t:
*high five*
Well, I guess I have 2 when Raz is in the mood.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
I HAS A STALKER!! :w00t:
You're stalking me, buddy! You're the one who replied to my post!
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
I HAS A STALKER!! :w00t:
*high five*
Well, I guess I have 2 when Raz is in the mood.
Raz really prefers stalking people with large perky breasts.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2012, 06:46:00 PM
Raz really prefers stalking people with large perky breasts.
:hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2012, 06:46:00 PM
Raz really prefers stalking people with large perky breasts.
I prefer you to do so as well :)
Does Berkut have perky breasts? :unsure:
Anyhow... derSpiess, I'm going to continue to throw out occasional references to your whore pills and your generally pro-women politics. You're welcome to consider it stalking if you like, but since you yourself said you like to troll on the subject, shouldn't you consider it a success as well?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 07:41:49 PM
Anyhow... derSpiess, I'm going to continue to throw out occasional references to your whore pills and your generally pro-women politics.
I do love the ladies :)
QuoteYou're welcome to consider it stalking if you like, but since you yourself said you like to troll on the subject, shouldn't you consider it a success as well?
Yessir :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2012, 06:46:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
I'd expect so. I guess they shouldn't have hired derSpiess to be their women's outreach co-ordinator.
I HAS A STALKER!! :w00t:
*high five*
Well, I guess I have 2 when Raz is in the mood.
Raz really prefers stalking people with large perky breasts.
I have some disappointing news to tell you about Yi.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 08:00:08 PMI have some disappointing news to tell you about Yi.
I have something to tell you about Yi as well. Yi would tell you to crop your goddamn quotes.
Yi will receive no satisfaction here.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 08:02:47 PM
Yi will receive no satisfaction here.
That's a good set-up for a joke about your ex, but at your expense.
... but I'll let it go.
JUST LIKE WITH ALL KOREANS LOLOL
Yeah real restrained there Jake. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 08:22:42 PM
JUST LIKE WITH ALL KOREANS LOLOL
Yeah real restrained there Jake. :lol:
What can I say? I'm a classy guy :cheers:
Mitt Romney won D.C., Maryland, and Wisconsin tonight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/maryland-wisconsin-washington-primaries.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/maryland-wisconsin-washington-primaries.html)
Romney wins in Wisconsin, DC, and Maryland. In other news:
QuoteSantorum vowed to press forward with his campaign, characterizing the primary as only having reached "halftime."
:bleeding:
In other words, Romney hasn't made a deal with him yet.
Hopefully, Ron Paul beats Gingrich in all three primaries tonight.
Why would someone want that?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2012, 09:09:10 PM
In other words, Romney hasn't made a deal with him yet.
You think he's going to? They all seem to genuinely hate eachother at this point.
No, probably not. As such, Santorum will fight to the bitter end.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2012, 10:01:18 PM
No, probably not. As such, Santorum will fight to the bitter end.
What's the angle here? He's putting in the hard work so it'll be his turn at some later, because that's how it works in the Republican party? Is it that he's working to keep the GOP in the direction he thinks is good by staying in as long as possible, forcing Romney to keep on the right? Is he hoping for a VP or administration nod? Or is it something else?
I think it's the first two about evenly split.
I think he may simply be insane.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
What's the angle here? He's putting in the hard work so it'll be his turn at some later, because that's how it works in the Republican party? Is it that he's working to keep the GOP in the direction he thinks is good by staying in as long as possible, forcing Romney to keep on the right? Is he hoping for a VP or administration nod? Or is it something else?
I can't imagine Santorum ever getting closer to the nomination than he is right now - especially considering that there will be more accomplished candidates in the race in 2016 (if Obama wins) or in 2020 (if Romney wins). I also don't think he would ever be given a post in a Romney administration - and especially not VP.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2012, 10:01:18 PM
No, probably not. As such, Santorum will fight to the bitter end.
What's the angle here? He's putting in the hard work so it'll be his turn at some later, because that's how it works in the Republican party? Is it that he's working to keep the GOP in the direction he thinks is good by staying in as long as possible, forcing Romney to keep on the right? Is he hoping for a VP or administration nod? Or is it something else?
I think he honestly believes he's on a crusade blessed by Teh Lord.
As long as you're raising enough money to fund the campaign and you're not interested in any future appointed positions, why not keep running?
After all, the world must know about Romney's and Obama's federally funded $50 abortions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 12:07:40 AM
As long as you're raising enough money to fund the campaign and you're not interested in any future appointed positions, why not keep running?
Well in Gingrich's case the campaign's in debt.
QuoteWhat's the angle here? He's putting in the hard work so it'll be his turn at some later, because that's how it works in the Republican party? Is it that he's working to keep the GOP in the direction he thinks is good by staying in as long as possible, forcing Romney to keep on the right? Is he hoping for a VP or administration nod? Or is it something else?
Well his only chance is to take this to a brokered convention. He's no longer trying not to lose but simply to stop Romney winning - which I think can last for a few more primaries.
But also I think he hates Romney. Everyone who runs against Romney, with the exception of Ron Paul (and as I've said I suspect Rand could be a VP nom), ends up hating him. This happened last election when a large part of why Huck kept running was just because he wanted to beat Romney into third place.
And, unlike Gingrich, I think Santorum comes out of this race with his status enhanced. He's probably partly running for that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 12:11:44 AM
After all, the world must know about Romney's and Obama's federally funded $50 abortions.
That's a hell of a deal. I'll take ten.
Marco Rubio would be an interesting VP choice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 01:19:08 AM
Marco Rubio would be an interesting VP choice.
I think he's the presumptive. But his family are (were?) Mormon so that may end that. Personally I think it'd be a bad choice for him.
Latter Day Saint! :angry:
You mean like Kilmer rather than Moore?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 01:22:51 AM
I think he's the presumptive. But his family are (were?) Mormon so that may end that. Personally I think it'd be a bad choice for him.
No shit, didn't know that.
Other than that he would bring a lot. Minority, street cred with the Ice-T Party, elected in a swing state with lots of electoral votes, and from what I've seen he's not a complete moron.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 01:50:41 AM
No shit, didn't know that.
I think they converted to mainstream evangelical Protestantism when he was young. But even so it may count against him.
QuoteOther than that he would bring a lot. Minority, street cred with the Ice-T Party, elected in a swing state with lots of electoral votes, and from what I've seen he's not a complete moron.
Agree. He's got star quality too. He's a very good speaker.
Quite frankly, I honestly expected Santorum to win in Wisconsin. Badgers have been going insane the last two years.
The gubernatorial recall election in June ought to be a complete hoot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 05:38:41 AM
Quite frankly, I honestly expected Santorum to win in Wisconsin. Badgers have been going insane the last two years.
What's extraordinary is that in the NYT's exit poll almost a quarter think that Santorum's not conservative enough :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 05:43:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 05:38:41 AM
Quite frankly, I honestly expected Santorum to win in Wisconsin. Badgers have been going insane the last two years.
What's extraordinary is that in the NYT's exit poll almost a quarter think that Santorum's not conservative enough :mellow:
Yeah, Wisconsin's Republicans seem to have really gone off the rails recently. I don't get it.
You've gotta figure that a certain percentage of the general public that gets included in exit polls includes old people with dementia and profoundly dumb people, neither of which understand the question(s).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 01:19:08 AM
Marco Rubio would be an interesting VP choice.
I think he already said he's not interested. I think Ron Paul is a possibility. Help lock up the pothead/militia vote. I think his best choice though would be some kind of cultural conservative woman.
Mitt needs an evangelical christian with bona fides. He needs somebody that will make the pastors in the many evangelical mega churches want to encourage their flock to vote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 05:43:26 AM
What's extraordinary is that in the NYT's exit poll almost a quarter think that Santorum's not conservative enough :mellow:
Nothing extraordinary in that. Other than being a Neanderthal on social policy, Santorum's record is not that of an arch-conservative. He keeps claiming that he is 'the real conservative," but so does everyone else, so that doesn't make him very conservative by itself. His inability to make the stump case for actually being a conservative leaves his record to speak authoritatively on the topic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2012, 05:43:26 AM
What's extraordinary is that in the NYT's exit poll almost a quarter think that Santorum's not conservative enough :mellow:
Well in my book he is not Conservative at all, at least not in the good ways. The guy has never found a spending bill he didn't like and the only ways he is right wing is in the way he wants laws passed to regulate people's behavior. So basically the guy is big brother personified.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 08:29:54 AM
Well in my book he is not Conservative at all, at least not in the good ways. The guy has never found a spending bill he didn't like and the only ways he is right wing is in the way he wants laws passed to regulate people's behavior. So basically the guy is big brother personified.
Pretty much agree. He's socially conservative for sure, but that's not the kind of conservative we need right now.
Mitt used the term "straw man" today re: Obama.
He has failed the Languish Litmus Test for argument.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 01:02:37 PM
Mitt used the term "straw man" today re: Obama.
He has failed the Languish Litmus Test for argument.
And that's without getting into all the ad hominems
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
What's the angle here?
He may just be really bad at math. That's an occupational hazard for a strident anti-science ideologue.
Obama gives speech attacking Romney and Ryan plan: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obama-attacks-romney-republican-party-in-fiery-budget-speech.php
Transcript: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/04/obama_hits_romney_congressiona.html
Obama consistently comes across as an adult who makes sense, but then I guess I'd say that.
One of the hallmarks of adulthood is dealing with problems instead of hoping they go away.
Audit: Review of Solyndra 'rushed'The Treasury's review of the $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra happened in about one day in 2009.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74826.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74826.html)
QuoteThe Treasury Department's review of Solyndra's $535 million federal loan guarantee was "rushed" through in about one day in March 2009, "based on an expedited review request from DOE so that a press release could be issued," according to a Treasury inspector general report that gives further evidence of the early Obama administration's eagerness to announce progress in funding clean energy.
The report, issued Tuesday, also quotes internal Treasury documents that portray the Energy Department as being under pressure to get the loan agreement out the door.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:03:26 PM
One of the hallmarks of adulthood is dealing with problems instead of hoping they go away.
Unfortunately for the GOP, women aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Unfortunately for the GOP, women aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
This post gave me an idea: a site that measures a person's degree of partisanship by the jokes they find funny.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Unfortunately for the GOP, women aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
This post gave me an idea: a site that measures a person's degree of partisanship by the jokes they find funny.
Make it!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Unfortunately for the GOP, women aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
This post gave me an idea: a site that measures a person's degree of partisanship by the jokes they find funny.
"Transvaginal ultrasound" gets funnier every time I hear it.
Romney now beating Santorum by 5 points in Pennsylvania for first poll taken this April. The former Senator's home state votes in less than 3 weeks. Can Romney stop Santorum from dragging on into May and June?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_republican_presidential_primary-1594.html
Santorum isn't going to withdraw from the race. I don't think Gingrich and Paul will either. They're in it to the bitter, crazy end.
I think Santorum is pinning all his hopes on Pennsylvania somehow turning things around for him. But it looks like it'll be his Waterloo.
Santorum seems determined to sabotage Romney like Regan sabotaged Ford.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2012, 08:19:21 AM
He needs somebody that will make the pastors in the many evangelical mega churches want to encourage their flock to vote.
Isn't that "somebody" Obama? Seems to me like Romney's going to need someone with some foreign policy cred.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
"Transvaginal ultrasound" gets funnier every time I hear it.
The funny part about it is that the very same people who sue to prove the gubmint can 'regulate inactivity" and force someone to buy insurance whether they want it or not argue that the gubmint can, indeed, "regulate inactivity" and force other people to get an ultrasound whether they want it or not.
And those morons don't even see how funny it is. They are completely unable to see hypocrisy when
they are the ones engaged in it. That's some funny shit.
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2012, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2012, 08:19:21 AM
He needs somebody that will make the pastors in the many evangelical mega churches want to encourage their flock to vote.
Isn't that "somebody" Obama? Seems to me like he's going to need someone with some foreign policy cred.
The impression that I'm getting is that conservative christians would rather not vote than vote for a heathen like Romney.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2012, 10:50:53 AM
The funny part about it is that the very same people who sue to prove the gubmint can 'regulate inactivity" and force someone to buy insurance whether they want it or not argue that the gubmint can, indeed, "regulate inactivity" and force other people to get an ultrasound whether they want it or not.
Not all of them.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2012, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2012, 08:19:21 AM
He needs somebody that will make the pastors in the many evangelical mega churches want to encourage their flock to vote.
Isn't that "somebody" Obama? Seems to me like he's going to need someone with some foreign policy cred.
The impression that I'm getting is that conservative christians would rather not vote than vote for a heathen like Romney.
Is that your impression or your hope?
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 10:54:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2012, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2012, 08:19:21 AM
He needs somebody that will make the pastors in the many evangelical mega churches want to encourage their flock to vote.
Isn't that "somebody" Obama? Seems to me like he's going to need someone with some foreign policy cred.
The impression that I'm getting is that conservative christians would rather not vote than vote for a heathen like Romney.
Is that your impression or your hope?
Impression.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
Impression.
We'll see. But don't underestimate the disdain a lot of them have for the guy he'll be facing in the general election. Sometimes that can make up for a lack of enthusiasm for your 'own' guy.
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
Impression.
We'll see. But don't underestimate the disdain a lot of them have for the guy he'll be facing in the general election. Sometimes that can make up for a lack of enthusiasm for your 'own' guy.
I sort of think the entire "Anybody but Romney" bit in the primaries has pretty much made that case for me.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 11:35:29 AMI sort of think the entire "Anybody but Romney" bit in the primaries has pretty much made that case for me.
That'll morph into anybody but Obama soon enough.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 11:35:29 AMI sort of think the entire "Anybody but Romney" bit in the primaries has pretty much made that case for me.
That'll morph into anybody but Obama soon enough.
Well, from the mouths of bigots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CtTP1s8BYk&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZI2K8roLG8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfFfK3J123A&feature=relmfu
and it goes on and on...
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2012, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2012, 08:19:21 AM
He needs somebody that will make the pastors in the many evangelical mega churches want to encourage their flock to vote.
Isn't that "somebody" Obama? Seems to me like he's going to need someone with some foreign policy cred.
The impression that I'm getting is that conservative christians would rather not vote than vote for a heathen like Romney.
I respectfully disagree. As soon as Romney trots out the I want to protect unborn babies bullshit, they're in the bag for him
Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 12:20:47 PM
The impression that I'm getting is that conservative christians would rather not vote than vote for a heathen like Romney.
I respectfully disagree. As soon as Romney trots out the I want to protect unborn babies bullshit, they're in the bag for him
[/quote]
Well, we'll see on election day when exit polls look at evangelical turnout.
As the tea party evangelical chick says in BBC's This World documentary "The Mormon Candidate" said, "if it is between Obama and Romen I wouldn't vote". I don't think the evangelicals will vote Obama, they'll just decline to vote.
I'm sure a documentary titled "The Mormon Candidate" would play up that angle. Who is the "tea party evangelical" chick? And you know that "tea party" and "evangelical" aren't necessarily tied together, right?
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 08:29:54 AM
Well in my book he is not Conservative at all, at least not in the good ways. The guy has never found a spending bill he didn't like and the only ways he is right wing is in the way he wants laws passed to regulate people's behavior. So basically the guy is big brother personified.
Pretty much agree. He's socially conservative for sure, but that's not the kind of conservative we need right now.
Somewhat serious question: Is there any othet kind around now?
Quote from: sbr on April 05, 2012, 01:58:31 PM
Somewhat serious question: Is there any othet kind around now?
Teabaggers.
:x
Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2012, 06:46:42 AM
Santorum isn't going to withdraw from the race. I don't think Gingrich and Paul will either. They're in it to the bitter, crazy end.
Well Paul is not in the race to win but to draw attention to his political message. Not sure what the other two are doing.
Quote from: sbr on April 05, 2012, 01:58:31 PM
Somewhat serious question: Is there any othet kind around now?
Yeah.
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 10:54:02 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2012, 10:50:53 AM
The funny part about it is that the very same people who sue to prove the gubmint can 'regulate inactivity" and force someone to buy insurance whether they want it or not argue that the gubmint can, indeed, "regulate inactivity" and force other people to get an ultrasound whether they want it or not.
Not all of them.
I was speaking about Virginia (and specifically our insufferable Attorney General), but didn't make that clear.
Quote from: sbr on April 05, 2012, 01:58:31 PM
Somewhat serious question: Is there any othet kind around now?
Guy by the name of Ron Paul. Mitch Daniels. Others. Not many ran this year. They don't excite the zealots and don't get the zealot money.
I wish Mitch had thrown his hat in. But his wife apparently didn't want him to, plus I guess he lacks a proper presidential head of hair :(
Oh, and Paul is not without his zealots (and their money), unless you're talking about religious zealots.
Paul Ryan, New Jersey Fat Boy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 03:21:48 PM
Paul Ryan, New Jersey Fat Boy.
What has the Fat Boy done that elevates him to the presidential status? Talk tough for a year or two when in spotlight? I'm a little disturbed at the trend of some local political newbies doing one nationally notable thing, going viral, and instantly becoming presidential material. (No, it doesn't apply to Obama, he's been a renowned community organizer for years before giving The Speech.)
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
What has the Fat Boy done that elevates him to the presidential status? Talk tough for a year or two when in spotlight? I'm a little disturbed at the trend of some local political newbies doing one nationally notable thing, going viral, and instantly becoming presidential material. (No, it doesn't apply to Obama, he's been a renowned community organizer for years before giving The Speech.)
The question was are there any non-cultural conservative conservatives still around, Captain Reading Comprehension.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
What has the Fat Boy done that elevates him to the presidential status? Talk tough for a year or two when in spotlight? I'm a little disturbed at the trend of some local political newbies doing one nationally notable thing, going viral, and instantly becoming presidential material. (No, it doesn't apply to Obama, he's been a renowned community organizer for years before giving The Speech.)
The question was are there any non-cultural conservative conservatives still around, Captain Reading Comprehension.
If you start looking for local politicians, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans in the Northeast who fit the bill. The problem is that they are either disqualified from the national arena, or tard it up to 11 to appeal to the GOP primary voters.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
What has the Fat Boy done that elevates him to the presidential status? Talk tough for a year or two when in spotlight? I'm a little disturbed at the trend of some local political newbies doing one nationally notable thing, going viral, and instantly becoming presidential material. (No, it doesn't apply to Obama, he's been a renowned community organizer for years before giving The Speech.)
I liked when he told everyone to "get the hell off the beach". That was OSSUM. Chris Christie for Emperor.
I like a politician who his fatter then me.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:03:42 PM
I like a politician who his fatter then me.
So Taft is your all time favorite?
Quote from: katmai on April 05, 2012, 08:05:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 08:03:42 PM
I like a politician who his fatter then me.
So Taft is your all time favorite?
He was under appreciated.
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 01:30:42 PM
I'm sure a documentary titled "The Mormon Candidate" would play up that angle. Who is the "tea party evangelical" chick? And you know that "tea party" and "evangelical" aren't necessarily tied together, right?
In this case she was a chick that was evangelical and in the tea party. John Sweeny asked her and that is what she said.
QuoteCanvass and polls
An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 99% said "concern about the economy" was an "important factor".[21] Polls have also examined Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[85][91][92] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[93][94] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[95][96] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[97][98]
Basically polling has Tea Partiers trending white, male, religious, racist and likely to belive birther claims.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Unfortunately for the GOP, women aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
This post gave me an idea: a site that measures a person's degree of partisanship by the jokes they find funny.
"Transvaginal ultrasound" gets funnier every time I hear it.
Sounds hot.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2012, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 11:35:29 AMI sort of think the entire "Anybody but Romney" bit in the primaries has pretty much made that case for me.
That'll morph into anybody but Obama soon enough.
Pretty much. They're not too thrilled with Mittens now, but once the convention kicks in, they'll flock.
Never underestimate the hatred Republican voters have for the concept of a liberal black man in Der Weiss Haus.
Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2012, 10:30:51 AM
I think Santorum is pinning all his hopes on Pennsylvania somehow turning things around for him. But it looks like it'll be his Waterloo.
I think you're wrong. Romney wants the focus to be on Pennsylvania, I think Santorum's probably hoping to survive there and be able to move onto May/June when there's states like Arkansas and Texas that he'll probably be targeting.
QuoteWe'll see. But don't underestimate the disdain a lot of them have for the guy he'll be facing in the general election. Sometimes that can make up for a lack of enthusiasm for your 'own' guy.
It worked for Kerry :P
QuoteI respectfully disagree. As soon as Romney trots out the I want to protect unborn babies bullshit, they're in the bag for him
He's been saying it for years. In 2008 he ran as the socially conservative candidate (and none of his speeches or policies are more moderate this time round). I think the problem is doubts about whether it's true. I actually think it is, I think he did kind of 'convert' on this issue.
QuoteGuy by the name of Ron Paul. Mitch Daniels. Others. Not many ran this year. They don't excite the zealots and don't get the zealot money.
Mitch would have been interesting. His line about a 'truce' on social issues didn't go down well. It would have been interesting though to see that tested and developed in the campaign.
QuoteThe question was are there any non-cultural conservative conservatives still around, Captain Reading Comprehension.
I think a better question is are there any issues which haven't been subsumed into the culture war? It seems to me that it's about a lot more than abortion and gays now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2012, 01:17:22 AM
I think a better question is are there any issues which haven't been subsumed into the culture war? It seems to me that it's about a lot more than abortion and gays now.
This strikes me a definitive characteristic of political discourse right now. Obamacare is clearly a culture war issue, and even formerly inflammatory things that had been put to rest like birth control have come back into controversy through their association with healthcare reform. The whole idea of the economy is a culture war issue in a way it probably wasn't during the Clinton/Greenspan years or even the 91-92 recession. The seeming consensuses on discrete culture war issues have been rolled into larger issues that still retain the culture war feel.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:32:39 PM
In this case she was a chick that was evangelical and in the tea party. John Sweeny asked her and that is what she said.
No one person speaks for the tea party movement.
QuoteCanvass and polls
An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 99% said "concern about the economy" was an "important factor".[21]
Cool.
QuotePolls have also examined Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it",
This is a libertarian, not necessarily racist, position.
Quotewhile a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public,
Okay.
Quoteand that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[85][91][92]
I wouldn't dispute that. There's bound to be more birther representation in a right-wing group vs. the nation at large. I don't like that, but it is what it is.
QuoteA seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[93][94] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[95][96]
Okay. I don't think 35% is that far off from the overall 40%. And btw, you're shifting gears. People who approve of the Tea Party movement are not necessarily themselves part of the movement.
Also, I have a problem with the poll question to begin with, as it seems to be forcing people to generalize one way or another about blacks.
QuoteHowever, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[97][98]
QuoteBasically polling has Tea Partiers trending white,
Sorry about that.
Quotemale,
:o
Quotereligious,
I missed that in what you posted.
Quoteracist
Disagree.
Quoteand likely to belive birther claims.
Likely? That would seem to imply a strong majority. Got anything to prove that?
And I'm missing the evidence of the Tea Party being an evangelical movement.
I'm impressed, derfetuss; you didn't have to edit that post 4 times.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
I'm impressed, derfetuss; you didn't have to edit that post 4 times.
I got lucky.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2012, 01:17:22 AM
I think a better question is are there any issues which haven't been subsumed into the culture war? It seems to me that it's about a lot more than abortion and gays now.
An
even better question is if you and Mihali are using this culture war language to describe the fact that every little fucking issue has gotten politicized and partizan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 02:22:35 PM
An even better question is if you and Mihali are using this culture war language to describe the fact that every little fucking issue has gotten politicized and partizan.
Agree. I think the whole "culture war" drumbeat is way overdone... if not positively partisan itself (I am talking in general, not aiming this at specific people here).
I just don't meet many people who think that way, either from the right or the left. I know a few, but they are a small minority. They are far more prevalent on Languish than I find in real life, for which I blame the fact that a lot of it here is posturing enabled by anonymity.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2012, 02:49:05 PM
I just don't meet many people who think that way, either from the right or the left. I know a few, but they are a small minority. They are far more prevalent on Languish than I find in real life, for which I blame the fact that a lot of it here is posturing enabled by anonymity.
What are you talking about? And are we realy that anonymous here? We know who most of us are and where we live and have been friends of a kind for nearly a decade.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 02:22:35 PM
An even better question is if you and Mihali are using this culture war language to describe the fact that every little fucking issue has gotten politicized and partizan.
What do you mean?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2012, 03:09:46 PM
What do you mean?
I mean is there anything to your comment that the culture war is subsuming other issues such as health care other than the fact that the debate is filled with partisan rancor and invective?
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2012, 02:57:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2012, 02:49:05 PM
I just don't meet many people who think that way, either from the right or the left. I know a few, but they are a small minority. They are far more prevalent on Languish than I find in real life, for which I blame the fact that a lot of it here is posturing enabled by anonymity.
What are you talking about? And are we realy that anonymous here? We know who most of us are and where we live and have been friends of a kind for nearly a decade.
People I know IRL are more likely to buy into culture war rhetoric than Languishites.
The hyperbole surrounding every political issue in the US today is worse than Hitler.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2012, 03:16:11 PM
I mean is there anything to your comment that the culture war is subsuming other issues such as health care other than the fact that the debate is filled with partisan rancor and invective?
I wasn't actually thinking of healthcare, I was meaning more about economic and, to a lesser extent, foreign policy (foreign policy seems to be the last bit with strong bipartisan elites). But I think the tone and thought of the debate is different and resembles the culture war. It's not an argument between two parties with different agendas but, to use Buchanan's language from his 92 speech, 'a war for the soul of America...a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself'.
I think that sort of rhetoric and the beliefs behind it are now affecting a lot of your political debate outside of the issues the culture war was originally about. In fact I think that Buchanan line's been more or less adopted into Romney's stump speech, but it's not used about abortion or anything like that.
On the other hand a lot of the original culture war issues are settled or settling down. The culture war fire has gone out of gun control for example (the controllers lost) and is dying down on gay marriage (the gayers are winning). That's been replaced by partisan posturing. I've read a few lefty writers who think Obama supports gay marriage and thinks he should just come out and support it. Personally I hope he doesn't because I think it would make the issue flare up and become partisan again which would be really counter-productive.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 06, 2012, 03:20:38 PM
The hyperbole surrounding every political issue in the US today is worse than Hitler.
If we do not correct it immediately we are all doomed.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2012, 02:57:33 PM
What are you talking about? And are we realy that anonymous here? We know who most of us are and where we live and have been friends of a kind for nearly a decade.
That may well be, but I doubt most of us would act the same face-to-face with each other as we do via an online forum like this. Speaking for myself, I'm less likely to want to discuss politics at all when I'm hanging out with someone in person. In fact, I think I'd get along with most of you a lot better than you'd think I would.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2012, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 06, 2012, 03:20:38 PM
The hyperbole surrounding every political issue in the US today is worse than Hitler.
If we do not correct it immediately we are all doomed.
In all seriousness, I think that while partisanship is as old as the hills there's a relatively new beast running around which involves an inability to compromise. I run into far more people today than I used to who seem to think "if this person/NGO/what-have-you does not agree with me on every single political issue, I cannot support them". The inability to look at something pragmatically has greatly worsened partisan rhetoric and voting patterns, IMO.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 06, 2012, 03:19:13 PM
People I know IRL are more likely to buy into culture war rhetoric than Languishites.
Opposite for me. Most people I know IRL (including my family, which is uniformly conservative GOP) don't seem to go for that.
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 04:11:10 PM
Opposite for me. Most people I know IRL (including my family, which is uniformly conservative GOP) don't seem to go for that.
Do they watch Fox News?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 06, 2012, 06:03:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 04:11:10 PM
Opposite for me. Most people I know IRL (including my family, which is uniformly conservative GOP) don't seem to go for that.
Do they watch Fox News?
My parents do sometimes. I think they rotate between news sources. Why?
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2012, 02:57:33 PM
What are you talking about? And are we realy that anonymous here? We know who most of us are and where we live and have been friends of a kind for nearly a decade.
What am I talking about? You post under "Valmy." I post under "grumbler." Neither of us are posting under real names. Why? Because it is fun to be able to take positions without consequences, to bait other posters, to engage in a verbal free-for-all without worrying about what the boss, significant other, or family would think.
Sure, we are friends, many of us. But even so, we behave differently when we are online than when we are face-to-face. There is a lot more heat in the debates I have here with, say, Yi, or CdM, than when we are sitting across from one another. That's the nature of the internet, and discussion boards in particular. And not just here; one of my best friends and I had to agree never to mention what we say in the Michigan and Ohio boards when we talk on the phone or face to face.
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 06:11:53 PM
My parents do sometimes. I think they rotate between news sources.
Not the same thing.
QuoteWhy?
Because a lot of the personalities on that station seem to think they're on Crusade.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 06, 2012, 04:04:13 PM
In all seriousness, I think that while partisanship is as old as the hills there's a relatively new beast running around which involves an inability to compromise. I run into far more people today than I used to who seem to think "if this person/NGO/what-have-you does not agree with me on every single political issue, I cannot support them". The inability to look at something pragmatically has greatly worsened partisan rhetoric and voting patterns, IMO.
I agree with this, but don't think the "culture war" is to blame. I think his has to do with a crisis mentality. What we are seeing now is a pale comparison of the FDR era but, I think, has many of the same features: many people just don't that there is room for error, and so not-quite-right = wrong for them.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2012, 06:25:13 PMone of my best friends and I had to agree never to mention what we say in the Michigan and Ohio boards when we talk on the phone or face to face.
Probably because you say things so wrist-cuttingly horrific that he would be compelled to murder you for the good of humanity if they actually entered his ears in the physical world. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 06, 2012, 06:59:16 PM
Probably because you say things so wrist-cuttingly horrific that he would be compelled to murder you for the good of humanity if they actually entered his ears in the physical world. :P
Yeah; stuff like "Terrel Pryor was an Academic All-American at OSU and scored a 6 on his Wonderlic!" :P
I think the major problem is that rhetoric has become so connected to actual government. In the past, politicians would rant and rave for the constituents, but once they got into Washington they got into legislative mode and worked to get shit done. In the last three decades the filibuster rate has increased dramatically. Politicians have to do the partisan song and dance routine constantly because they are always on TV. The problem is not as some people suggest that Washington is out of touch, the problem is that Washington is in touch too much.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2012, 09:11:36 PM
I think the major problem is that rhetoric has become so connected to actual government. In the past, politicians would rant and rave for the constituents, but once they got into Washington they got into legislative mode and worked to get shit done. In the last three decades the filibuster rate has increased dramatically. Politicians have to do the partisan song and dance routine constantly because they are always on TV. The problem is not as some people suggest that Washington is out of touch, the problem is that Washington is in touch too much.
I think some of that stems from the fact that the GOP can actually contend for control of congress, rather than just being the perennial losers. With control changing hands periodically nowadays, there's bound to be more resentment, revenge, etc. Hopefully both sides can learn to handle that more gracefully. Or we'll just have to learn to live with it.
I wonder if term limits would help (or hurt?) the problem.
As I really can't resist spamming about Hil's (inadvertent?) PR coup (/why couldn't this come about in 2008?!!!).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m21fn8gJn91rt7gleo1_500.jpg&hash=cb92389954d6a6ce0df4c444aaffbb2c587c9f17)
Her PR coup?
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2012, 10:33:38 PM
Her PR coup?
Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2012, 09:11:36 PM
I think the major problem is that rhetoric has become so connected to actual government. In the past, politicians would rant and rave for the constituents, but once they got into Washington they got into legislative mode and worked to get shit done. In the last three decades the filibuster rate has increased dramatically. Politicians have to do the partisan song and dance routine constantly because they are always on TV. The problem is not as some people suggest that Washington is out of touch, the problem is that Washington is in touch too much.
I think some of that stems from the fact that the GOP can actually contend for control of congress, rather than just being the perennial losers. With control changing hands periodically nowadays, there's bound to be more resentment, revenge, etc. Hopefully both sides can learn to handle that more gracefully. Or we'll just have to learn to live with it.
I wonder if term limits would help (or hurt?) the problem.
A great deal of the resentment and revenge comes from the GOP, though. I think the problem is 24 news networks and politicians trying to appease a fickle public with only a shallow knowledge of public policy.
Quote from: derspiess on April 06, 2012, 09:34:16 PMI think some of that stems from the fact that the GOP can actually contend for control of congress, rather than just being the perennial losers. With control changing hands periodically nowadays, there's bound to be more resentment, revenge, etc. Hopefully both sides can learn to handle that more gracefully. Or we'll just have to learn to live with it.
I think that's part of it. I'd also suggest that both parties have over the past three decades become more defined by ideology than geography, so they're more coherent and actually have a set of beliefs - in some ways that's a good thing.
The worry is your last point. That's effectively a Parliamentary system, but Congress isn't Parliamentary. There's too much protection and power for the minority group. So you've got the ideological rigidity and partisanship of a Parliamentary system, but the institutional requirement for cooperation of your system. In practice it just means nothing gets done.
I think you either need to have graceful alternating power which means that Republicans and Democrats pass their agendas and the voters decide, if something's unpopular then next time repeal it. Or more cooperation and finding of common ground.
For example I think this year Congress has passed one bill. It asked themselves to stop using inside knowledge in their trading of stocks and shares.
Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2012, 10:33:38 PM
Her PR coup?
Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.
The role has played to a lot of her strengths, and shown her up as an extremely competent diplomat and politician. In retrospect, some of my dislike of her back in 08 was unearned-the primary was tough, and heated, but it made both sides stronger.
I actually hope she runs in 2016.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 07, 2012, 08:40:15 AM
I actually hope she runs in 2016.
That's Joe's year :mmm: :wub:
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2012, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
"Transvaginal ultrasound" gets funnier every time I hear it.
The funny part about it is that the very same people who sue to prove the gubmint can 'regulate inactivity" and force someone to buy insurance whether they want it or not argue that the gubmint can, indeed, "regulate inactivity" and force other people to get an ultrasound whether they want it or not.
And those morons don't even see how funny it is. They are completely unable to see hypocrisy when they are the ones engaged in it. That's some funny shit.
There is a big distinction there. The health care litigation is over whether the
federal government can force people to purchase health insurance. In other words, it's about the federal government's power under the constitution. I think everyone agrees that state governments(e.g. Massachusetts) can force people to purchase health insurance (or ultrasounds for that matter). Under the constitution, states have the broad powers(power to regulate health, safety, morals, welfare) that would clearly encompass encompass mandated purchase of health insurance or mandated. The only limitation on state governments is that they can't violate constitutional rights(e.g. right to speech).
Romney on iPad, Hillary on Blackberry. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2012, 03:53:32 PM
Romney on iPad, Hillary on Blackberry. :(
Article in the WaPost this week on how Blackberry is completely entrenched in DC.
QuoteBlackBerry remains official Washington's smartphone even as its maker's fortunes decline
Outside Washington, the world is moving at warp speed away from the BlackBerry. At its maker, profits are declining and executives are leaving, and the BlackBerry has even conceded its perch as the top smartphone in its native Canada.
Inside the Beltway, time stands still. A half million federal workers — President Obama and his staff among them — are still thumbing little black keyboards on little black devices. And that number hasn't dipped over the past few years while Research in Motion, BlackBerry's maker, has recorded plummeting sales everywhere else.
The slow-moving federal bureaucracy is keeping the BlackBerry around. But RIM's intensifying troubles and thriving rivals are confronting Washington with a question: Should it break its "crackberry" addiction?
Some agencies are already loosening their policies to let their workers choose other smartphones. Lawmakers and aides can now bring iPhones into the halls of Congress.
But, for the most part, the federal government hasn't joined the smartphone revolution.
"We appreciate RIM's focus on security, which is paramount for government use," said Casey Coleman, the chief information officer at the General Services Administration. The agency has issued some iPhones and Android-based phones for staffers, but the vast majority of its 12,000 agency-issued smartphones are BlackBerrys.
But Coleman added that other platforms are proving equally secure. The GSA, she said, places "a priority on adoption where appropriate of innovative new technologies,"
Agencies and big contractors note that the BlackBerry is cheaper than the iPhone and many Android devices. IT departments across the government have years-long contracts with RIM and the wireless carriers that promote the device. And tech staffers at federal agencies are trained to fix BlackBerry products, which makes it harder to switch to new technologies, analysts say.
Plus, newer devices aren't as secure as the BlackBerry, some agency officials said.
The slow pace of change has made the BlackBerry as much a part of federal culture as short-sleeve, white-collared shirts were among NASA engineers or lapel pins are among politicians on Capitol Hill. Some analysts even expect Washington to become the last bastion for RIM's devices.
That would leave many Washingtonians with smartphone envy.
Paul Silder, a government contractor, says he feels stuck with the BlackBerry that the Department of Homeland Security gave him.
So the 44-year-old father of two is left longing for an iPhone or an Android that he can proudly tuck into the holster on his left hip.
"I want a bigger screen. I only really use it for work, but it would be nice to surf the Web more easily," Silder sighs.
RIM said it is making a full-court press among government agencies, touting the security of its no-nonsense devices.
"The federal government is a very important market to us and will continue to be. It is our core strength," said Scott Totzke, a RIM senior vice president.
Just look at how hackers breached the accounts of Google's mail service in the past year, other RIM executives have noted. And do you really want workers distracted by the temptation of claiming daily coupons or posting pictures on Facebook on their smartphones when they should be writing policy papers or legislation?
It's not so bad being the smartphone version of a boring briefcase if agencies order more, the firm says.
"BlackBerry cannot succeed if we try to be everybody's darling and all things to all people," said newly appointed chief executive Thorsten Heins in a conference call last week.
Overall, BlackBerry's dominance has quickly faded. Today, phones based on Google's Android software account for 48 percent of the market, while Apple's iPhone has 32 percent and BlackBerrys have dropped to a distant third place with 12 percent.
Last week, RIM reported quarterly earnings that missed analysts' expectations. Its profit dropped to $418 million in the last three months of 2011, compared with the $934 million it earned during the same period in 2010. Several senior executives resigned their posts, including former co-chief executive Jim Balsillie. On Monday, RIM's stock fell about 9.5 percent in regular trading.
And RIM's focus on the government is hardly exclusive. Each agency chooses its technology providers independently. So competition remains fierce for their business.
That's helped Apple and other device makers gain access to the State Department, NASA and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Education Secretary Arne Duncan last week promoted the use of Apple's iPad tablets to improve learning in public schools.
The competition has left workers in a kind of device limbo, in which some have resorted to carrying two devices — one for work and one for play.
Christina Cox, a Washington events planner, plans to switch to an iPhone when her contract with Verizon Wireless is up next month. She's willing to pick up the cost for the iPhone, even though she can get reimbursed for her BlackBerry bills.
"Everyone used to have a BlackBerry in town, but I need more than just e-mail," Cox said about her BlackBerry.
Yet for some locals, the fancier and faster phones that have been quickly rolled out carry little appeal.
Lindsey Bowen, a 29-year-old program director at the Junior Statesmen Foundation, often has to defend her BlackBerry as iPhone- and Android-obsessed friends mock her device. Seen as outdated and uncool, it's become the Washington worker's fashion equivalent of a hard-shell Samsonite briefcase.
"Tell us again, how many apps do you have on that thing?" they tease.
But Bowen recoils at the thoughts of a touch-screen smartphone. The embarrassing spelling errors with the iPhone's auto-correct feature. The insecure thumbing away at letters and numbers on a flat screen compared with the satisfying touch of a raised keyboard.
"I love the keyboard. I just can't get used to anything else," Bowen said.
Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2012, 10:33:38 PM
Her PR coup?
Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.
This just in: what your friends think does not make a "PR coup".
It's not like she said to a photographer "ok, this is what we'll do" and then leaked the photo.
Plus, "social media" doesn't matter to grown ups.
In short, better luck next time. :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2012, 01:00:43 AM
The worry is your last point. That's effectively a Parliamentary system, but Congress isn't Parliamentary. There's too much protection and power for the minority group. So you've got the ideological rigidity and partisanship of a Parliamentary system, but the institutional requirement for cooperation of your system. In practice it just means nothing gets done.
Got it in one. :thumbsup:
This didn't used to be the case. But the quest for reliable primary voters has led to the path of rigid orthodoxy, and the demonization of opponents. It's happened before, but seldom (if ever) with so much at stake.
Quote from: stjaba on April 07, 2012, 12:49:55 PM
There is a big distinction there. The health care litigation is over whether the federal government can force people to purchase health insurance. In other words, it's about the federal government's power under the constitution. I think everyone agrees that state governments(e.g. Massachusetts) can force people to purchase health insurance (or ultrasounds for that matter).
It's a distinction without a difference, though. For the individual, "the gubmint" is "the gubmint." While I understand the constitutional issues raised by the health care mandate, and don't really have strong feelings about whether the challenge should stand or fall, I find it hilarious that the very people who cry "big government" when government does something they find intrusive enthusiastically endorse "big government" intrusion when it supports their own agendas. Virginia's "conservative" Attorney General is the poster child for this.
Mark the name: Kenneth Cuccinelli. He will be the darling of the Religious Reich before the decade is out.
I wish zombie Tip O'Neill would rise from the grave and knock some fucking heads together.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 07, 2012, 09:13:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2012, 10:33:38 PM
Her PR coup?
Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.
This just in: what your friends think does not make a "PR coup".
It's not like she said to a photographer "ok, this is what we'll do" and then leaked the photo.
Plus, "social media" doesn't matter to grown ups.
In short, better luck next time. :bowler:
Maybe you should try harder. That might work. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2012, 10:01:39 PM
It's a distinction without a difference, though. For the individual, "the gubmint" is "the gubmint." While I understand the constitutional issues raised by the health care mandate, and don't really have strong feelings about whether the challenge should stand or fall, I find it hilarious that the very people who cry "big government" when government does something they find intrusive enthusiastically endorse "big government" intrusion when it supports their own agendas. Virginia's "conservative" Attorney General is the poster child for this.
Mark the name: Kenneth Cuccinelli. He will be the darling of the Religious Reich before the decade is out.
Well, some conservatives favor a decentralization of power, from the federal level to the state level. And some favor less power at both the federal and state levels. I would probably tend toward the latter, but if Virginia wants to do some ultrasound thing, or Massachusetts wants to require health insurance, or California wants to regulate everything, they can all have at it.
Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2012, 10:33:38 PM
Her PR coup?
Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.
What other photos are there? I don't get the PR coup thing based on the one I've seen. She's just wearing sunglasses and checking something on her Blackberry :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 11:35:53 AM
Well, some conservatives favor a decentralization of power, from the federal level to the state level. And some favor less power at both the federal and state levels. I would probably tend toward the latter, but if Virginia wants to do some ultrasound thing, or Massachusetts wants to require health insurance, or California wants to regulate everything, they can all have at it.
Sigh, the states don't get to do whatever they want. The constitution does protect the citizens from the states the same way as it protects them from the federal government.
- this ultrasound "thing" that Virginia wanted to do was to force women seeking a legal medical procedure to suffer an medically unnecissary vaginal probe for certain kinds of pregnancies.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:06:10 PM
Sigh, the states don't get to do whatever they want.
Did I say that? :huh:
QuoteThe constitution does protect the citizens from the states the same way as it protects them from the federal government.
Depends on what you're talking about, but we do have a 10th Amendment, which is supposed to grant powers to the states that are not defined as being federal powers.
Quote- this ultrasound "thing" that Virginia wanted to do was to force women seeking a legal medical procedure to suffer an medically unnecissary vaginal probe for certain kinds of pregnancies.
I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
How is the size of the medical procedure relevant?
Are you really suggesting that as long as procedure B is "smaller" in some fashion than procedure A, then nobody should have an objection to the state forcing B on you if you want A, even if it is absolutely certain that it is not necessary?
The lengths you are willing to go to justify your "conservative" values is pretty amusing.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 11:35:53 AM
Well, some conservatives favor a decentralization of power, from the federal level to the state level. And some favor less power at both the federal and state levels. I would probably tend toward the latter, but if Virginia wants to do some ultrasound thing, or Massachusetts wants to require health insurance, or California wants to regulate everything, they can all have at it.
Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate: if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it. If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).
I would note that "Virginia" doesn't want to do things. It is a legal fiction. Some Virginians want to force everyone to undergo (and pay for) ultrasounds for no reason that the proponents will admit. Those are not conservatives, in my opinion.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
How is the size of the medical procedure relevant?
Are you really suggesting that as long as procedure B is "smaller" in some fashion than procedure A, then nobody should have an objection to the state forcing B on you if you want A, even if it is absolutely certain that it is not necessary?
The lengths you are willing to go to justify your "conservative" values is pretty amusing.
You're spoiling to go crusading today, aren't you? I said I don't care that much about the issue, and I was only addressing Viking's objection, which used vague/misleading language.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
You neglected to mention that a vaginal ultrasound is not required before undergoing heart surgery, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an abortion.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PMI don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
Why should he mention it? It's irrelevant.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:06:10 PM
Sigh, the states don't get to do whatever they want.
Did I say that? :huh:
You seemed to suggest that.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:06:10 PM
QuoteThe constitution does protect the citizens from the states the same way as it protects them from the federal government.
Depends on what you're talking about, but we do have a 10th Amendment, which is supposed to grant powers to the states that are not defined as being federal powers.
Yes, powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, but the rights of the citizen vis a vis the state are the same as their rights vis a vis the federal government.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:06:10 PM
Quote- this ultrasound "thing" that Virginia wanted to do was to force women seeking a legal medical procedure to suffer an medically unnecissary vaginal probe for certain kinds of pregnancies.
I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
Yes, but the abortion is procedure desired by the patient, the vaginal ultrasound is a procedure desired by the government. I'm baffled that you can't understand the difference here.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2012, 12:43:09 PM
Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate: if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it. If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).
Good for you. But the distinction is that laws passed in another state don't directly affect me, and within certain boundaries the people & lawmakers in other states can pass whatever laws they want, and deal with whatever consequences.
Federal laws, like Obamacare, do affect me.
QuoteI would note that "Virginia" doesn't want to do things. It is a legal fiction. Some Virginians want to force everyone to undergo (and pay for) ultrasounds for no reason that the proponents will admit. Those are not conservatives, in my opinion.
I don't care.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2012, 12:43:09 PM
Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate: if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it. If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).
Good for you. But the distinction is that laws passed in another state don't directly affect me, and within certain boundaries the people & lawmakers in other states can pass whatever laws they want, and deal with whatever consequences.
Federal laws, like Obamacare, do affect me.
I see, forcing you to buy your own health insurance is bad. BTW, do you have health insurance. In which case Obamacare saves you money.
Quote
QuoteI would note that "Virginia" doesn't want to do things. It is a legal fiction. Some Virginians want to force everyone to undergo (and pay for) ultrasounds for no reason that the proponents will admit. Those are not conservatives, in my opinion.
I don't care.
I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.
This is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.
The massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:44:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.
How is the size of the medical procedure relevant?
Are you really suggesting that as long as procedure B is "smaller" in some fashion than procedure A, then nobody should have an objection to the state forcing B on you if you want A, even if it is absolutely certain that it is not necessary?
The lengths you are willing to go to justify your "conservative" values is pretty amusing.
You're spoiling to go crusading today, aren't you? I said I don't care that much about the issue, and I was only addressing Viking's objection, which used vague/misleading language.
That is the point - you "don't care much" about an issue that amounts to the state forcing women to allow someone to shove something up their vagina. That says a lot about your "conservative" values, and how much principle is actually behind them.
Viking used perfectly accurate terms, and divorcing the terms from the particulars was, I imagine, entirely the point. The only reason this isn't seen as simply beyond the pale is that it is in service to the holy grail of supposedly "conservative "politics - abortion.
The fact that you find it misleading to talk about this in the general sense says just how insane it is that anyone would support this - or even not be much bothered by it. You *should* be much bothered by it, because it is utterly counter to anything an actual "conservative" should find as acceptable activity of the state.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.
I don't care. If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.
QuoteThis is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.
You cool with libertarians, then?
QuoteThe massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.
I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government. Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it. Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
That is the point - you "don't care much" about an issue that amounts to the state forcing women to allow someone to shove something up their vagina.
Isn't something being shoved up there in the abortion procedure anyway?
QuoteThat says a lot about your "conservative" values, and how much principle is actually behind them.
Fortunately, you don't get to define conservatism.
QuoteViking used perfectly accurate terms,
Sure he did. But technically accurate terms can be misleading if you choose to omit certain details.
Quoteand divorcing the terms from the particulars was, I imagine, entirely the point. The only reason this isn't seen as simply beyond the pale is that it is in service to the holy grail of supposedly "conservative "politics - abortion.
The fact that you find it misleading to talk about this in the general sense says just how insane it is that anyone would support this - or even not be much bothered by it. You *should* be much bothered by it, because it is utterly counter to anything an actual "conservative" should find as acceptable activity of the state.
My apathy really pisses you off, doesn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:09:54 PMMy apathy really pisses you off, doesn't it?
:lol:
Real subtle.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:09:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
That is the point - you "don't care much" about an issue that amounts to the state forcing women to allow someone to shove something up their vagina.
Isn't something being shoved up there in the abortion procedure anyway?
During an abortion, sure. But just because some woman agrees to letting someone shove something up their vagina at some point does not mean the state has carte blanche to shove other things up there against their objections otherwise.
I am amazed that you would actually try to defend this.
Quote
QuoteThat says a lot about your "conservative" values, and how much principle is actually behind them.
Fortunately, you don't get to define conservatism.
I suppose not, but then, neither do you. You can make it clear that your values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means however, as defined by the actual definition of the word.
Quote
QuoteViking used perfectly accurate terms,
Sure he did. But technically accurate terms can be misleading if you choose to omit certain details.
In this case, it was not misleading at all however.
Quote
Quoteand divorcing the terms from the particulars was, I imagine, entirely the point. The only reason this isn't seen as simply beyond the pale is that it is in service to the holy grail of supposedly "conservative "politics - abortion.
The fact that you find it misleading to talk about this in the general sense says just how insane it is that anyone would support this - or even not be much bothered by it. You *should* be much bothered by it, because it is utterly counter to anything an actual "conservative" should find as acceptable activity of the state.
My apathy really pisses you off, doesn't it?
Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.
This is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.
The massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.
You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief. It's not. Never has been. It's a fall back position. You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally. Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit. Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
I suppose not, but then, neither do you. You can make it clear that your values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means however, as defined by the actual definition of the word.
Well, here's the thing. I'm a conservative and you're not. I don't get to define conservatism, per se, but I can define the type of conservative I am.
Now tell me how my "values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means."
QuoteNot really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.
I really haven't given it enough thought to properly form an opinion. If this were an Ohio law, I'd give it more thought, and it's entirely possible that I'd oppose (or support) such a law.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief. It's not. Never has been. It's a fall back position. You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally. Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit. Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."
What do you think my position is on that?
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:05:15 PM
I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government. Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it. Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.
:hmm: Yeah, they did, when the new guy took over. That's like forming a partisan group to fight the Germans, in 1946.
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2012, 01:36:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:05:15 PM
I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government. Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it. Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.
:hmm: Yeah, they did, when the new guy took over. That's like forming a parisan group to fight the Germans, in 1946.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.
WTF did I do? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
I suppose not, but then, neither do you. You can make it clear that your values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means however, as defined by the actual definition of the word.
Well, here's the thing. I'm a conservative and you're not.
Not sure I agree with that beyond that you are a member of the "conservative" tribe, and I am not. If the term "conservative" has any actual meaning that reflects the principles that a person stands for beyond their membership in their tribe, then I suspect I am much more deserving of the label than you are...
Quote
I don't get to define conservatism, per se, but I can define the type of conservative I am.
True, but then you could just as easily claim you are a communist who is all in favor of capitalism and the free market. It would be about as accurate as claiming you are any kind of actual conservative who is ok with the state mandating that women have ultrasounds.
Quote
Now tell me how my "values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means."
I quote William F. Buckley:
QuoteIt is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
The idea that the state should be able to force women to undergo what everyone explicitly agrees is a completely unnecessary and invasive medical procedure in the hopes that by doing so you can shame the woman into NOT undergoing some other medical procedure does not in any fashion fit into any kind of rational definition of conservatism - indeed, it is exactly the kind of state mandated social engineering that is precisely counter to the ideal of small, non-intrusive government that respects personal liberty and freedom above all.
Quote
QuoteNot really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.
I really haven't given it enough thought to properly form an opinion. If this were an Ohio law, I'd give it more thought, and it's entirely possible that I'd oppose (or support) such a law.
It doesn't take any serious amount of thought to conclude that the state should not mandate that women have shit shoved into their vaginas that they do not want shoved their in an effort to shame them into not having abortions.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief. It's not. Never has been. It's a fall back position. You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally. Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit. Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."
What do you think my position is on that?
I'll let you put your own foot in your mouth.
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2012, 01:38:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.
WTF did I do? :unsure:
Nothing at all.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:05:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.
I don't care. If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.
I take it then that you never travel outside Ohio?
Quote
QuoteThis is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.
You cool with libertarians, then?
Yes and No and Not Relevant. The issue I'm addressing here is Hypocracy. Libertarians can be hypocrites as well, especially when people claiming to be hypocrites oppose what Obama wants to make you do about insuring yourself but blithely disregard what Virginia wants to make you do before getting an abortion.
I like to think of myself as a Libertarian, but my Libertarian view, like all my views, are always moderated by reality.
Quote
QuoteThe massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.
I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government. Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it. Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.
They started the tea party thing not when the spending was going haywire with the unfunded prescription drug benifits for seniors, the bush tax cuts and the bloat in the military budget. It's the same point as I have suggested before. American fiscal conservatives ONLY find their fiscal conservativeness when the bill is due and they are suffering from a spending hangover.
This is not me being all partisan liberal. I am a fully paid up member of The Norwegian Conservative Party and have been for 15 years. Which, despite the name, has classical liberal objectives and policies to make norway more classically liberal.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2012, 12:43:09 PM
Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate: if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it. If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).
Good for you. But the distinction is that laws passed in another state don't directly affect me, and within certain boundaries the people & lawmakers in other states can pass whatever laws they want, and deal with whatever consequences.
Federal laws, like Obamacare, do affect me.
To quote you, "I don't care" whether it affects you. This issue isn't about you.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief. It's not. Never has been. It's a fall back position. You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally. Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit. Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."
I am objecting to the hypocracy here. The only calculation that seems to be going on here is that the question "Am I willing to forego this freedom if I can deprive others of it?". Arguments about jurisdiction and constitution are all subject to that one question.
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief. It's not. Never has been. It's a fall back position. You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally. Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit. Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."
I am objecting to the hypocracy here. The only calculation that seems to be going on here is that the question "Am I willing to forego this freedom if I can deprive others of it?". Arguments about jurisdiction and constitution are all subject to that one question.
It's not hypocrisy. They don't believe it to begin with.
Derspeiss is demonstrating the big problem with Libertarianism and why it will never get off the ground (at least in the US). It's inherently selfish. It's an ideology that doesn't really care about what other people are doing. There are a very few die hards who really believe having freedom for everyone, but most often if someone else's freedom is being limited that doesn't affect the libertarian, the libertarian doesn't really care. This makes them pathetically easy to divide up. One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope. Hell, he might even support it. So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut. Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight. They are only concerned with themselves.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 01:42:03 PM
Not sure I agree with that beyond that you are a member of the "conservative" tribe, and I am not. If the term "conservative" has any actual meaning that reflects the principles that a person stands for beyond their membership in their tribe, then I suspect I am much more deserving of the label than you are...
You guys still doing the "tribe" thing here?
Quote
True, but then you could just as easily claim you are a communist who is all in favor of capitalism and the free market. It would be about as accurate as claiming you are any kind of actual conservative who is ok with the state mandating that women have ultrasounds.
:huh:
Quote
I quote William F. Buckley:
QuoteIt is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
Not that I disagree with that principle, but that's the libertarian flavor of conservatism. FWIW, Buckley himself was anti-abortion.
QuoteThe idea that the state should be able to force women to undergo what everyone explicitly agrees is a completely unnecessary and invasive medical procedure in the hopes that by doing so you can shame the woman into NOT undergoing some other medical procedure does not in any fashion fit into any kind of rational definition of conservatism - indeed, it is exactly the kind of state mandated social engineering that is precisely counter to the ideal of small, non-intrusive government that respects personal liberty and freedom above all.
Who are you arguing with here? And why do you say "some other medical procedure" instead of "an abortion"? Why not save yourself the keystrokes & be more precise at the same time?
Quote
It doesn't take any serious amount of thought to conclude that the state should not mandate that women have shit shoved into their vaginas that they do not want shoved their in an effort to shame them into not having abortions.
I'm quite serious when I say I haven't given it much thought to have formed an opinion. I haven't read up on the issue and am not familiar with this type of ultrasound procedure or why proponents of the law are in favor of it. All I know is that Grumbler is pretty pissed off, and you've gotten yourself into a froth. I'd rather get my info from a less biased source-- if I decide to bother with it (which btw I don't think I'll be doing at work :D ).
Quote from: Viking on April 09, 2012, 01:54:02 PM
I take it then that you never travel outside Ohio?
I do, actually. Nearly every day. Point?
Quote
Yes and No and Not Relevant.
I was just curious.
QuoteThe issue I'm addressing here is Hypocracy. Libertarians can be hypocrites as well, especially when people claiming to be hypocrites oppose what Obama wants to make you do about insuring yourself but blithely disregard what Virginia wants to make you do before getting an abortion.
Okay, you lost me there.
QuoteI like to think of myself as a Libertarian, but my Libertarian view, like all my views, are always moderated by reality.
Do I get to call you a hypocrite when you state a non-Libertarian view "moderated by reality"?
Quote
They started the tea party thing not when the spending was going haywire with the unfunded prescription drug benifits for seniors, the bush tax cuts and the bloat in the military budget.
It started brewing with those issues. But it takes time to build up momentum.
QuoteIt's the same point as I have suggested before. American fiscal conservatives ONLY find their fiscal conservativeness when the bill is due and they are suffering from a spending hangover.
A fair point, at least in terms of GOP politicians. Which is why there was an insurgent movement within the GOP to dump some of the offenders during the 2010 primaries.
QuoteThis is not me being all partisan liberal.
You seem to post like one, at least whenever you voice your opinion on US politics.
QuoteI am a fully paid up member of The Norwegian Conservative Party and have been for 15 years. Which, despite the name, has classical liberal objectives and policies to make norway more classically liberal.
Good man.
Kentucky don't count and you know it spicy.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:05:15 PM
I don't care. If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.
If you could choose between being a US citizen or an Ohio citizen(and could only pick one), which would you choose?
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 03:47:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 01:05:15 PM
I don't care. If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.
If you could choose between being a US citizen or an Ohio citizen(and could only pick one), which would you choose?
Uh... the first one. :unsure:
What is the purpose of citizenship then?
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 03:50:43 PM
What is the purpose of citizenship then?
Sounds like a nice topic for a philosophical debate, but what are you getting at?
I suspect, from what I know of you, that you consider yourself a good citizen and are loyal to your country.
I also suspect that you value liberty.
I am curious, then, how you reconcile those values with your claimed disregard for the liberty of your fellow citizens.
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 04:20:14 PM
I suspect, from what I know of you, that you consider yourself a good citizen and are loyal to your country.
I also suspect that you value liberty.
I am curious, then, how you reconcile those values with your claimed disregard for the liberty of your fellow citizens.
I don't disregard the liberty of my fellow citizens.
So it's over, you guys have finally chosen the guy who you want to lose to Obama.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 04:20:14 PM
I suspect, from what I know of you, that you consider yourself a good citizen and are loyal to your country.
I also suspect that you value liberty.
I am curious, then, how you reconcile those values with your claimed disregard for the liberty of your fellow citizens.
I don't disregard the liberty of my fellow citizens.
So you do care about laws that don't affect you but affect your fellow citizens?
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 04:29:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 04:20:14 PM
I suspect, from what I know of you, that you consider yourself a good citizen and are loyal to your country.
I also suspect that you value liberty.
I am curious, then, how you reconcile those values with your claimed disregard for the liberty of your fellow citizens.
I don't disregard the liberty of my fellow citizens.
So you do care about laws that don't affect you but affect your fellow citizens?
Sure, some of them. Don't have the time nor the attention span to worry about all of them. Is there a point to your line of questioning, counselor?
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 04:34:15 PM
Sure, some of them. Don't have the time nor the attention span to worry about all of them. Is there a point to your line of questioning, counselor?
You seemed to be saying that you didn't care about laws that affect people in another state because they don't affect you. That seemed bizarre, so I was try to find out if it was indeed the case.
Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
You seemed to be saying that you didn't care about laws that affect people in another state because they don't affect you. That seemed bizarre, so I was try to find out if it was indeed the case.
Well, I'll clue you in on something. There is a lot going on in places far (or relatively far) from me that I don't care about. Laws get passed in California that I probably wouldn't agree with. Am I supposed to get all worked up about them as well?
Now if the ultrasound thing were legislation here in Ohio I'd probably give it some thought, read up on it, and form an opinion. I might email my state senator/representative to voice my opinion on the matter. And depending on how they vote, I'd factor that in to whether I vote for them in the next election or primary.
Or if this were such a grave issue in Virginia, where women were being pulled over at random & systematically beaten by the state, I'd probably care. But a situation where women in some other state having an abortion might be being inconvenienced by an additional preliminary procedure doesn't register too high on my "Give A Shit" meter.
It's possible I could oppose such a law in Ohio. Or I suppose it's possible I could even support such a law. But unless that comes to pass, I'll remain ambivalent. Frankly, the reaction I'm getting from you guys here makes me even more determined not to hold an opinion :D
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 04:52:44 PM
Frankly, the reaction I'm getting from you guys here makes me even more determined not to hold an opinion :D
Yeah, I can certainly see that coming through...which of course makes me that much more convinced you don't hold many (any?) opinions based on actual principle really.
Which is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PMWhich is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 04:52:44 PM
Frankly, the reaction I'm getting from you guys here makes me even more determined not to hold an opinion :D
Yeah, I can certainly see that coming through...which of course makes me that much more convinced you don't hold many (any?) opinions based on actual principle really.
Which is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Well, I guess we're extra lucky to have you here in all your principled self-righteousness.
Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PMWhich is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?
:mad:
What are principles but signs of weakness?
Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PMWhich is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?
grumbler, you, CC, Marty (in certains contexts, not at all in others), Yi, garbon, Shelf, Oex. I am sure there are plenty I am missing, so if I didn't mention you that doesn't really mean much.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 08:14:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 04:52:44 PM
Frankly, the reaction I'm getting from you guys here makes me even more determined not to hold an opinion :D
Yeah, I can certainly see that coming through...which of course makes me that much more convinced you don't hold many (any?) opinions based on actual principle really.
Which is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Well, I guess we're extra lucky to have you here in all your principled self-righteousness.
We aren't talking about me though.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2012, 08:25:07 PM
What are principles but signs of weakness?
He's talking about cowardice. He revels in it.
I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot. Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
Derspeiss is demonstrating the big problem with Libertarianism and why it will never get off the ground (at least in the US). It's inherently selfish.
:huh:
It has gotten off the ground big time in the US, and that is its major selling point. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 09, 2012, 08:58:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
Derspeiss is demonstrating the big problem with Libertarianism and why it will never get off the ground (at least in the US). It's inherently selfish.
:huh:
It has gotten off the ground big time in the US, and that is its major selling point. :contract:
Big time? :huh:
2%.
Pffft, there's a strong strain of libertarianism in the Republican party and a strain of civil libertarianism in the Democratic party.
The thing that separates the big L Libertarian party from those two isn't selfishness, it's the lack of pragmatism.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope. Hell, he might even support it. So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut. Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight. They are only concerned with themselves.
Not much money in liberty. Strange one would support it out of crass self interest.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 09, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Pffft, there's a strong strain of libertarianism in the Republican party and a strain of civil libertarianism in the Democratic party.
The thing that separates the big L Libertarian party from those two isn't selfishness, it's the lack of pragmatism.
Same thing. The libertarianism in both parties is very much a one way street. The Civil Libertarians in the Democratic party are fond of the nanny state and the libertarians in the GOP aren't interested in helping people who don't look like them.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:14:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope. Hell, he might even support it. So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut. Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight. They are only concerned with themselves.
Not much money in liberty. Strange one would support it out of crass self interest.
Ron Paul does pretty good. He talks about ending the Fed and is heavily invested in Gold Mining. Funny that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 09, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Pffft, there's a strong strain of libertarianism in the Republican party and a strain of civil libertarianism in the Democratic party.
The thing that separates the big L Libertarian party from those two isn't selfishness, it's the lack of pragmatism.
That's actually quite well-put. :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PMWhich is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?
grumbler, you, CC, Marty (in certains contexts, not at all in others), Yi, garbon, Shelf, Oex. I am sure there are plenty I am missing, so if I didn't mention you that doesn't really mean much.
Did you forget Strix?
I think it's cute when Berkut gets this way. Talking about tribes and such. He mistakes his opinion for irrefutable facts, and gets mad when our biases cause us not to agree with these "Facts".
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 10:09:37 PM
I think it's cute when Berkut gets this way. Talking about tribes and such. He mistakes his opinion for irrefutable facts, and gets mad when our biases cause us not to agree with these "Facts".
Don't be sad that you didn't make the list. :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot. Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?
I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2012, 10:06:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2012, 07:51:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2012, 07:33:35 PMWhich is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.
Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?
grumbler, you, CC, Marty (in certains contexts, not at all in others), Yi, garbon, Shelf, Oex. I am sure there are plenty I am missing, so if I didn't mention you that doesn't really mean much.
Did you forget Strix?
I certainly try to.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 01:34:26 AM
I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.
Even someone who doesn't support the basic (original) conservative value of liberty should reject the proposition that unnecessary ultrasound procedures for no announced purpose was a wise policy for governments to introduce. Besides the costs to the individual involved (a liberty issue), there are the costs to government and society: the taxpayers will pick up the costs for a lot of these ultrasound procedures, plus the costs of enforcement, and will forgo whatever government services are abandoned to free up resources to track which women seeking abortions have, and have not, actually completed the requirement. Fiscal conservatives like to talk cost-benefit (I certainly do), and yet this law proposes to impose significant costs for absolutely zero gain. No matter where in the country such a thing was proposed, it seems to me impossible for an actual conservative (other than a social-engineer-"conservative") to not scoff at the 'wisdom" of such a law.
The claim of indifference to this law on the basis of "it doesn't affect me" seems so feeble and transparently disingenuous coming from a person who supports laws banning abortion, even though such a law would not affect him, his being unable to get pregnant, let alone get an abortion. The "principal" at work here seems to be "I don't want to try to defend a law that I support even though I know it is absurd."
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 01:34:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot. Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?
I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women.
Why do you keep doing that? It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women". Stop being misleading. It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions. Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?
And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?
QuoteThat is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.
That's your opinion. I happen not to see it that way, at least not in such dire terms.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 06:55:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 01:34:26 AM
I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.
Even someone who doesn't support the basic (original) conservative value of liberty should reject the proposition that unnecessary ultrasound procedures for no announced purpose was a wise policy for governments to introduce. Besides the costs to the individual involved (a liberty issue), there are the costs to government and society: the taxpayers will pick up the costs for a lot of these ultrasound procedures, plus the costs of enforcement, and will forgo whatever government services are abandoned to free up resources to track which women seeking abortions have, and have not, actually completed the requirement. Fiscal conservatives like to talk cost-benefit (I certainly do), and yet this law proposes to impose significant costs for absolutely zero gain. No matter where in the country such a thing was proposed, it seems to me impossible for an actual conservative (other than a social-engineer-"conservative") to not scoff at the 'wisdom" of such a law.
The claim of indifference to this law on the basis of "it doesn't affect me" seems so feeble and transparently disingenuous coming from a person who supports laws banning abortion, even though such a law would not affect him, his being unable to get pregnant, let alone get an abortion. The "principal" at work here seems to be "I don't want to try to defend a law that I support even though I know it is absurd."
Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one. I stand in light opposition to the law. I don't think it's going to end up making a noticeable difference in the number of abortions that take place, and I think it was a waste of political capital for the Virginia legislature's Republicans to try to push through such a law.
I know it won't please Berkut that I'm not jumping up & down screaming about how this is *the* human rights issue of the century. And don't expect me to put together a march on Richmond to picket the state capitol building.
But I did it for you guys.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toptenz.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fnickburns.jpg&hash=0669a6a548e2faf5f80dc1786f8496e1c7a6728c)
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Why do you keep doing that? It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women". Stop being misleading. It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions. Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?
And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?
Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion? If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 01:34:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot. Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?
I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women.
Why do you keep doing that? It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women". Stop being misleading. It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions. Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?
I am being completely upfront about the actual issue. It doesn't matter one bit that it is only mandatory for women who want an abortion - liberty does not work that way. It is not ok to force women to have things shoved into them by state order if and only if they want to have some other perfectly legal procedure. It is misleading to suggest that the connection is meaningful and relevant.
I am literally flabbergasted that someone could actually argue that it is reasonable for the government to require someone to have an invasive medical procedure that everyone agrees is completely unnecessary for any medical reason. You say putting in those terms is misleading - honestly, throwing in the idea that the actual purpose is to shame the woman into NOT having another procedure just makes it worse, not better. That just means that the actual purpose, rather than being unstated, is in fact stated as "...in order to attempt to shame or harass the subject into not doing something that a minority of people wishes they were not allowed to do, but cannot manage to actually ban".
Quote
And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?
No, actually that is not true. Many conservatives are opposed to abortion, but there is nothing about the principles of conservatism that makes it fundamental. More to the point however is that this is not about being pro or anti abortion, it is about being pro or anti making abortion illegal. I am against abortion, and in favor of it being legal and available. And that is a perfectly rational conservative position. I will also state that being against legal abortion can also be a perfectly sane and rational conservative position.
Being against legal abortion, and in favor of using the power of the state to compel behaviour you cannot successfully legislate via gross violations of individual privacy and liberty is not and cannot be a rational conservative position. There are principles that could motivate such a position, but they are not conservative principles - they are the same principles that motivate people to shoot abortion doctors. Oddly enough, while they are radical, they are a hell of a lot more consistent than your attempt to pound this square peg into this round hole of "Sure, it is a conservative principle that the state should force women to have unnecessary medical procedures!"
And even more to the point is that this isn't even about THAT- it is about using the power of the state to shame women into acting in a manner that some minority wishes, when they cannot muster the political support to enact the rules they really want. And the idea that THAT is a reasonable use of the power of the state to compel desired behavior of private citizens is completely antithetical to the actual fundamental principles of conservatism which is that the state should have as little power as possible, and very little indeed when it comes to the actions of private citizens where there is no compelling state interests at stake.
Quote
QuoteThat is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.
That's your opinion. I happen not to see it that way, at least not in such dire terms.
Of course not - you do not see it that way because you are not motivated by the very principles I am talking about - hence my point.
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?
Relevant or not: HAWT.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 06:55:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 01:34:26 AM
I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.
Even someone who doesn't support the basic (original) conservative value of liberty should reject the proposition that unnecessary ultrasound procedures for no announced purpose was a wise policy for governments to introduce. Besides the costs to the individual involved (a liberty issue), there are the costs to government and society: the taxpayers will pick up the costs for a lot of these ultrasound procedures, plus the costs of enforcement, and will forgo whatever government services are abandoned to free up resources to track which women seeking abortions have, and have not, actually completed the requirement. Fiscal conservatives like to talk cost-benefit (I certainly do), and yet this law proposes to impose significant costs for absolutely zero gain. No matter where in the country such a thing was proposed, it seems to me impossible for an actual conservative (other than a social-engineer-"conservative") to not scoff at the 'wisdom" of such a law.
The claim of indifference to this law on the basis of "it doesn't affect me" seems so feeble and transparently disingenuous coming from a person who supports laws banning abortion, even though such a law would not affect him, his being unable to get pregnant, let alone get an abortion. The "principal" at work here seems to be "I don't want to try to defend a law that I support even though I know it is absurd."
Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one. I stand in light opposition to the law. I don't think it's going to end up making a noticeable difference in the number of abortions that take place, and I think it was a waste of political capital for the Virginia legislature's Republicans to try to push through such a law.
This is not a stand on principle at all though - it is simply saying that it is a-ok for the state to force women to have doctors shove things into their vaginas, but it is a poor tactical move politically.
Presumably, if this is the logic forming your "opposition" you would be in favor if in fact the effect of the law was more profound (which by definition would make it's civil liberty encroachment even greater) or if the political cost was lower, or some combination of the two.
You are basically coming out and saying that the equivalent of "Black people really should ride in the back of the bus, but the law forcing them to do so is more trouble than keeping them back there is worth, so I am against it".
Ironically enough, your "conversion" makes it much MORE clear you are not actually motivated by principle, and in fact quite the opposite - principle takes a clear back seat to expediency.
Quote
I know it won't please Berkut that I'm not jumping up & down screaming about how this is *the* human rights issue of the century. And don't expect me to put together a march on Richmond to picket the state capitol building.
No, I don't think this is THE human rights issue of the century, nor am I really that concerned about it - even if it became law, it would obviously be struck down the moment some doctors actually tried to force some woman to let him shove something up her vagina for no reason at all.
I think the entire issue is MUCH more interesting from the perspective that it illuminates just how devoid of basic understanding of simple liberty many, many people (such as yourself) actually are - another example of how most people pay no more than lip service to the idea that individual liberty is paramount, or even relevant, to political thought.
Seedy, where did you post go?
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:14:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope. Hell, he might even support it. So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut. Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight. They are only concerned with themselves.
Not much money in liberty. Strange one would support it out of crass self interest.
I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 10:02:10 AM
I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"
You forgot Freedom.
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion?
No.
QuoteIf you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?
Why bring theology into this?
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Why do you keep doing that? It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women". Stop being misleading. It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions. Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?
And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?
Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion? If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?
Probably because it's part of the law. These new ultra sound laws are absurd, but lets not get carried away. The ultrasound stuff only occurs when a woman wants an abortion. That is why the woman's desire for an abortion is relevant. She isn't getting "Dildo raped" if she comes in for a broken leg or thoracic surgery.
Berkut: I'm done discussing this issue. It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it. Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion?
No.
QuoteIf you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?
Why bring theology into this?
Because you think that there is a material difference between forcing somebody to be vaginally probed for wanting an abortion and somebody being vaginally probed for wanting something which is not an abortion.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 10:16:09 AM
Probably because it's part of the law. These new ultra sound laws are absurd, but lets not get carried away. The ultrasound stuff only occurs when a woman wants an abortion. That is why the woman's desire for an abortion is relevant. She isn't getting "Dildo raped" if she comes in for a broken leg or thoracic surgery.
I don't think anyone is questioning what the law is, but rather what it should be.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one. I stand in light opposition to the law. I don't think it's going to end up making a noticeable difference in the number of abortions that take place, and I think it was a waste of political capital for the Virginia legislature's Republicans to try to push through such a law.
I know it won't please Berkut that I'm not jumping up & down screaming about how this is *the* human rights issue of the century. And don't expect me to put together a march on Richmond to picket the state capitol building.
But I did it for you guys.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toptenz.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fnickburns.jpg&hash=0669a6a548e2faf5f80dc1786f8496e1c7a6728c)
Oh, man, I have a feeling you're going to be penetrated harder and deeper for this than a Virginia woman getting an abortion. :(
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Because you think that there is a material difference between forcing somebody to be vaginally probed for wanting an abortion and somebody being vaginally probed for wanting something which is not an abortion.
That didn't answer my question.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
Berkut: I'm done discussing this issue. It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it. Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.
But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.
I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty. And I don't think anyone who categorically rejects the basic idea of individual liberty can make a credible claim that they are doing so because of their principled stand as a cosnervative, which has as one of its fundamental principles the idea that the state should not violate individual liberty without compelling cause.
I understand your reluctance to continue the debate - the fact that your debate tactics seem to amount to pretty transparent personal attacks rather than any attempt to address my argument makes it clear that, like state mandated vaginal probing, this strategy is neither effective or worth the cost to your credibility.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:27:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Because your theology makes you think that there is a material difference between forcing somebody to be vaginally probed for wanting an abortion and somebody being vaginally probed for wanting something which is not an abortion.
That didn't answer my question.
fair enough, I inserted the bold bit in my quote above to make it clear.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
Berkut: I'm done discussing this issue. It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it. Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.
But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.
I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.
I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.
Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:29:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:27:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Because your theology makes you think that there is a material difference between forcing somebody to be vaginally probed for wanting an abortion and somebody being vaginally probed for wanting something which is not an abortion.
That didn't answer my question.
fair enough, I inserted the bold bit in my quote above to make it clear.
That's incorrect. My theology does not make me think that. Leave my theology out of this.
Btw, didn't the Virginia bill get changed to where it requires an abdominal ultrasound rather than a pelvic ultrasound? Kinda makes your and Berkut's 'vaginal probe' thing a moot point.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:29:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:27:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Because your theology makes you think that there is a material difference between forcing somebody to be vaginally probed for wanting an abortion and somebody being vaginally probed for wanting something which is not an abortion.
That didn't answer my question.
fair enough, I inserted the bold bit in my quote above to make it clear.
That's incorrect. My theology does not make me think that. Leave my theology out of this.
Btw, didn't the Virginia bill get changed to where it requires an abdominal ultrasound rather than a pelvic ultrasound? Kinda makes your and Berkut's 'vaginal probe' thing a moot point.
No. There are certain times in the pregnancy where only the vaginal ultrasound can "see" the zygote. So not all abortions would be examined by means of vaginal ultrasound.
If not your theology, what other reason do you have for granting civil rights based on a desire to recieve a certain medical procedure?
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
Berkut: I'm done discussing this issue. It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it. Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.
But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.
I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.
I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.
Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".
Nice strawman - but I never made such an argument then, and am not making said argument now.
If one takes a position that the state has the power to violate personal liberty on the basis of some minorities (or even majorities for that matter) opnion on how that private individual should act, then in fact that does mean they don't give a shit about the core principles of liberty.
In this case, it is a bit worse, IMO. For a couple reasons:
1. There case that there is a compelling state interest at stake is non-existent. There is not possible argument that there is a compelling state interest in forcing women to get unnecessary ultrasounds. While the case for compelling people to be married to one another is pretty fucking weak, at least there is a case there.
2. This is a much more personal violation of individual liberty, dealing with a strictly private medical matter that has zero impact on anyone, and includes an astounding physical action that literally allows the state to mandate that someone shove something into someone elses body.
3. While I think the argument that the state should have the power for force people to be married who do not want to be married is almost farcical in its hubris, at least that is the current law of the land, and changing it places the burden on those demanding the change. That is a burden that I think is trivially met, but at least you can argue that there is a conservative principle of "don't change stuff". In this case, there is no current law that demands that the state be allowed to vaginally probe women, so it is even more sad that people are arguing that such a law enshrining violation of women be created.
So in other words, you are right - there are some real similarities in the two arguments in kind. But the practical applications of those principles is considerably different.
On the other hand, there is a reason I did not include you in my list of principled languish posters, and your position that the state be allowed to force people to be married when they don't want to be does preclude you from any claim to having any kind of principle that includes a respect for individual liberty. You could still be principled I suppose, just not THAT principle.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Btw, didn't the Virginia bill get changed to where it requires an abdominal ultrasound rather than a pelvic ultrasound? Kinda makes your and Berkut's 'vaginal probe' thing a moot point.
Did it?
That is nice - it is like changing the law so Rosa Park can site in the back 2/3rds of the bus, rather than the back 1/3rd.
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:41:54 AM
No. There are certain times in the pregnancy where only the vaginal ultrasound can "see" the zygote. So not all abortions would be examined by means of vaginal ultrasound.
So they didn't change the Virginia law? :unsure:
QuoteIf not your theology, what other reason do you have for granting civil rights based on a desire to recieve a certain medical procedure?
Oh, cute-- the "When did you stop beating your wife"-type question :rolleyes:
Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology. And no, I am not going to debate abortion on Languish. That dead horse has been beaten enough.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
Berkut: I'm done discussing this issue. It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it. Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.
But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.
I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.
I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.
Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".
Nice strawman - but I never made such an argument then, and am not making said argument now.
I could have sworn you said almost that exact same statement - that I obviously didn't care about personal liberties because I saw no problem with the state "forcing" two people to remain married for one year until they could get a divorce.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology.
Indeed, I think many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed for non-religious reasons.
However, the set of people who are
A) Opposed to abortion,
B) Think it should be illegal,
C) Think that absent the ability to succeed at making B reality we should engage in making laws that make it more difficult in other ways, some of which are gross impositions on civil liberty or include the state expanding its power in order to meddle in places it has no business otherwise, and
D) Hold all these positions for non-religious reasons
is pretty damn small.
In fact, I cannot really imagine a rational and consistent non-theological principle that would result in holding positions A-C. The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is
D1) God says abortion is wrong, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable.
This is the idea that there is some greater principle involved that justifies trampling over minor principles like respect for individual liberty and such.
Not gonna do it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology.
Indeed, I think many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed for non-religious reasons.
However, the set of people who are
A) Opposed to abortion,
B) Think it should be illegal,
C) Think that absent the ability to succeed at making B reality we should engage in making laws that make it more difficult in other ways, some of which are gross impositions on civil liberty or include the state expanding its power in order to meddle in places it has no business otherwise, and
D) Hold all these positions for non-religious reasons
is pretty damn small.
In fact, I cannot really imagine a rational and consistent non-theological principle that would result in holding positions A-C. The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is
D1) God says abortion is wrong, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable.
This is the idea that there is some greater principle involved that justifies trampling over minor principles like respect for individual liberty and such.
Couldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".
Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
Berkut: I'm done discussing this issue. It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it. Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.
But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.
I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.
I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.
Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".
Nice strawman - but I never made such an argument then, and am not making said argument now.
I could have sworn you said almost that exact same statement - that I obviously didn't care about personal liberties because I saw no problem with the state "forcing" two people to remain married for one year until they could get a divorce.
But that isn't the same as saying you don't care about personal liberty because you disagree with me. Hence the claim that I made that argument is in fact a strawman.
I do in fact believe you don't give a practical shit about personal liberty - because there is no way to reconcile giving a shit about personal liberty with the position that the state should have the power to compel people to be married who do not wish to be.
Not sure how I can make it more clear that there is a rather profound difference between "You do not care about personal liberty because you disagree with me" and "You do not care about personal liberty because you are willing to force people who do not want to be married to be married because you think they ought to be regardless of what they want".
Sorry, Beeb. He's yours now :(
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology.
Indeed, I think many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed for non-religious reasons.
However, the set of people who are
A) Opposed to abortion,
B) Think it should be illegal,
C) Think that absent the ability to succeed at making B reality we should engage in making laws that make it more difficult in other ways, some of which are gross impositions on civil liberty or include the state expanding its power in order to meddle in places it has no business otherwise, and
D) Hold all these positions for non-religious reasons
is pretty damn small.
In fact, I cannot really imagine a rational and consistent non-theological principle that would result in holding positions A-C. The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is
D1) God says abortion is wrong, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable.
This is the idea that there is some greater principle involved that justifies trampling over minor principles like respect for individual liberty and such.
Couldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".
Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.
Sure - I think I mentioned before that that position is consistent, albeit rather radical.
It is the position that leads to people shooting abortion doctors. If you really believe that abortion is the mruder of a human being, then it is perfectly consistent to take very radical measures to stop it. Indeed, at that point shoving probes into women is a pretty minor means.
However, the set of people who feel that way for non-religious reasons seems to be virtually non-existent. I've never once heard of the radical pro-life crowd being composed of the non-religious. I suppose it is possible, but the reality is that it doesn't seem to happen.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:57:56 AM
Sorry, Beeb. He's yours now :(
This really is the most effective means you have of responding to me.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
I could have sworn you said almost that exact same statement - that I obviously didn't care about personal liberties because I saw no problem with the state "forcing" two people to remain married for one year until they could get a divorce.
But that isn't the same as saying you don't care about personal liberty because you disagree with me. Hence the claim that I made that argument is in fact a strawman.
I do in fact believe you don't give a practical shit about personal liberty - because there is no way to reconcile giving a shit about personal liberty with the position that the state should have the power to compel people to be married who do not wish to be.
Not sure how I can make it more clear that there is a rather profound difference between "You do not care about personal liberty because you disagree with me" and "You do not care about personal liberty because you are willing to force people who do not want to be married to be married because you think they ought to be regardless of what they want".
I think people can draw their own conclusions about how much (or how little) a difference there is between those two statements. Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 10:41:54 AM
No. There are certain times in the pregnancy where only the vaginal ultrasound can "see" the zygote. So not all abortions would be examined by means of vaginal ultrasound.
So they didn't change the Virginia law? :unsure:
I thought they repealed the whole ultrasound requirement, but after some checking it turns out they just removed the transvaginal ultrasound requirement. Now they are going to make women seeking early first tri-mester ultrasounds take pelvic ultrasounds which will see nothing.
This is less invasive, but still problematic. Religious motives are driving women to subject themselves to an unnecessary procedure.
Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:59:59 AM
It is the position that leads to people shooting abortion doctors. If you really believe that abortion is the mruder of a human being, then it is perfectly consistent to take very radical measures to stop it. Indeed, at that point shoving probes into women is a pretty minor means.
Meh. It's not only not happening to me, it literally can't happen to me.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
I could have sworn you said almost that exact same statement - that I obviously didn't care about personal liberties because I saw no problem with the state "forcing" two people to remain married for one year until they could get a divorce.
But that isn't the same as saying you don't care about personal liberty because you disagree with me. Hence the claim that I made that argument is in fact a strawman.
I do in fact believe you don't give a practical shit about personal liberty - because there is no way to reconcile giving a shit about personal liberty with the position that the state should have the power to compel people to be married who do not wish to be.
Not sure how I can make it more clear that there is a rather profound difference between "You do not care about personal liberty because you disagree with me" and "You do not care about personal liberty because you are willing to force people who do not want to be married to be married because you think they ought to be regardless of what they want".
I think people can draw their own conclusions about how much (or how little) a difference there is between those two statements. Res Ipsa Loquitor.
True enough.
It is trivially easy to find many, many examples of people who disagree with me who I make no claims about their position on liberty to prove that in fact the claim that I have done so in your case for the rather idiotic reason you repeatedly claim even after I politely point out to you that you are incorrect about my motives is nothing more than a rather weak personal attack made in place of an actual argument.
Quote from: Maximus on April 10, 2012, 11:21:48 AM
Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.
Entirely true.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?
Why bring theology into this?
Because: Viking.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:32:40 AM
Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? :lmfao:
By being gutless enough to abandon
even the position that you were too gutless to
take a position, you only make matters worse. Having principles means that you stick to them even when they are unpopular (though you don't ever assume that they are the only possible principles). The unprincipled change their positron whenever, as is the case with you in this post, changing positions is easier than standing your ground.
Go back to talking shit about women and their "whore pills.". It can only improve your image after you shit your bed like this.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 10:46:58 AM
Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology.
Indeed, I think many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed for non-religious reasons.
However, the set of people who are
A) Opposed to abortion,
B) Think it should be illegal,
C) Think that absent the ability to succeed at making B reality we should engage in making laws that make it more difficult in other ways, some of which are gross impositions on civil liberty or include the state expanding its power in order to meddle in places it has no business otherwise, and
D) Hold all these positions for non-religious reasons
is pretty damn small.
In fact, I cannot really imagine a rational and consistent non-theological principle that would result in holding positions A-C. The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is
D1) God says abortion is wrong, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable.
This is the idea that there is some greater principle involved that justifies trampling over minor principles like respect for individual liberty and such.
I've been with you so far, but I think you're reaching too far here. If the important difference is A-C as opposed to A-B, then I don't see why religion has to explain it. I don't see why you have to be religious to support gradually chipping away at the law you want overturned. It may be repugnant, if those gradualist laws involve harassment like this Virginia law, but I don't see why it has to be religious in nature.
Quote from: Maximus on April 10, 2012, 11:21:48 AM
Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.
And even that is an aside, as the real question is whether allow such a liberty is justified to begin with.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?
And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right? I am not "opposed" to abortion, and I am conservative.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:55:28 AMCouldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".
Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.
In theory that may be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case in reality.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:55:39 AM
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? :lmfao:
Yeah-- I guess I missed something funny :unsure:
QuoteBy being gutless enough to abandon even the position that you were too gutless to take a position, you only make matters worse.
Apathy is not gutlessness. If I were as gutless as you think I am or was, I either would have agreed with you guys wholeheartedly or not said anything at all.
QuoteHaving principles means that you stick to them even when they are unpopular (though you don't ever assume that they are the only possible principles). The unprincipled change their positron whenever, as is the case with you in this post, changing positions is easier than standing your ground.
Wait, so you think I decided to formulate an opinion because I'm unprincipled and gutless? If I did that for those reasons, I would have just parroted back your & Berkut's opinions. I knew you guys were going to give me shit for my stated reasons for opposing the bill.
QuoteGo back to talking shit about women
I don't do that.
Quoteand their "whore pills.".
:D
QuoteIt can only improve your image after you shit your bed like this.
:huh:
I suggest you stop using the "whore pills" troll. It's like Hitler trolling about putting Jews in the oven. He may really be trolling, but given the individual context it would be hard to tell.
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 10:02:10 AM
I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"
Not sure if serious.
American libertarianism is arguably the defining characteristic of the American political system. Libertarianism was the driving force behind the creation of the country. Libertarians arguably sacrificed more for the creation of the country, and then the abolition of slavery, than did all the statists combined.
Sure, there are as great a percentage of selfish libertarians as selfish statists ("you got what I want and I am going to take it because JUSTICE" on the left, and "I do what God sez and I am gonna make you do what God sez because I'm not suffering alone and GODIDIT" on the right), but no more, I'd think.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Maximus on April 10, 2012, 11:21:48 AM
Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.
Entirely true.
Yes, I think we all (at least Max, DGul, you and I) agree on that.
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 12:01:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:55:28 AMCouldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".
Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.
In theory that may be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case in reality.
Well he did say "The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is" so I was just pointing out that such isn't the only consistent one. :P
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?
Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion. I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.
QuoteI am not "opposed" to abortion, and I am conservative.
I suspect you're trying to draw me into some sort of trap here, with calling yourself conservative rather than *a* conservative. But I'll play. In what ways are you conservative?
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
I suggest you stop using the "whore pills" troll. It's like Hitler trolling about putting Jews in the oven. He may really be trolling, but given the individual context it would be hard to tell.
How many times have I uttered those words?
And Hitler? Really??
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:13:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 12:01:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:55:28 AMCouldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".
Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.
In theory that may be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case in reality.
Well he did say "The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is" so I was just pointing out that such isn't the only consistent one. :P
Yeah, I over-stated that - what I meant to say was that it seemed like that was the only consistent position in reality comes from the religious.
I think that is because absent a religious conviction that the moment of conception having significance because that is when the soul is put in or whatever, your typical non religious person is very unlikely to take such a stark and uncompromising view of what constitutes a human life. It is hard to reallya rgue that a two cell zygot has full human rights, expecially since we know that so many of them are created and destroyed absent any intervention at all, and we also know that it isn't even aware of itself, much less it's destruction.
It is not that one could not do so, but more that there is no obvious and compelling non religious case to be made that one MUST do so.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?
Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion. I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.
Really?
I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything about abortion in my complete Edmund Burke.
Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines. I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it. As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 12:12:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 10:02:10 AM
I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"
Not sure if serious.
American libertarianism is arguably the defining characteristic of the American political system. Libertarianism was the driving force behind the creation of the country. Libertarians arguably sacrificed more for the creation of the country, and then the abolition of slavery, than did all the statists combined.
Sure, there are as great a percentage of selfish libertarians as selfish statists ("you got what I want and I am going to take it because JUSTICE" on the left, and "I do what God sez and I am gonna make you do what God sez because I'm not suffering alone and GODIDIT" on the right), but no more, I'd think.
You're right. I think it's just that the selfish strain of American libertarianism seem more vociferous right now... actually, not even that, but that ideological selfishness is using the language of liberty to justify their positions. I don't want to get into a "no true libertarian scotsman" situation. Sufficeth to say, I have high respect for the principle of freedom as espoused, and often enacted, by the American people at their best.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 11:09:12 AM
I think people can draw their own conclusions about how much (or how little) a difference there is between those two statements. Res Ipsa Loquitor.
I think it will be trivial for them to draw such a conclusion, given the enormous difference between the positions. As you say,
Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion. I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.
I dunno, I've never seen opposing abortion as being particularly conservative. My dad has always been the more conservative of my parents, but is pro-choice. My mom is closer to a classic big government liberal but is pro-life.
In fact a few years ago they both switched parties. My dad went from Republican to Democrat, repulsed by the spending without taxing attitude of Bush (and the increasing radicalism of the Tea Party), while my mom went Republican driven away by the lack of pro-life support in the Democrats.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 12:24:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?
Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion. I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.
Really?
I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything about abortion in my complete Edmund Burke.
Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines. I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it. As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.
The split in US always struck me as a little strange. It's usually the liberals who go "fixing injustice trumps personal rights", and it's usually the conservatives who go "I'll do whatever I want, butt out". However, in case of abortion, it's reversed. It probably has something to do with the confounding of issues that the two party system coupled with partisanship forces, with the religious wing of the GOP tent subverting other wings.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 12:24:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?
Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion. I'm surprised we're debating that-- even here on Languish.
Really?
I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything about abortion in my complete Edmund Burke.
Abortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines. I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it. As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.
I think we've also established that Canadian Conservatism is different from US Conservatism.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:05:55 PM
If I were as gutless as you think I am or was, I either would have agreed with you guys wholeheartedly or not said anything at all.
No, being the one who knows
exactly how gutless I think you are, I can assuredly say that you are wrong here.
QuoteWait, so you think I decided to formulate an opinion because I'm unprincipled and gutless?
Yes. You said as much yourself: "Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one." You interpreted criticism of your unwillingness to oppose anti-liberty legislation from your side as mere criticism of your lack of an opinion, and so attempted to mitigate the criticism you thought you were getting by an insipid and uninformed cursory "opinion" that you thought would obviate the need for defending yourself based on principles and courage.
QuoteIf I did that for those reasons, I would have just parroted back your & Berkut's opinions. I knew you guys were going to give me shit for my stated reasons for opposing the bill.
I don't think you understand my position, nor perhaps Berkut's. You
do get shit for basing opinions on expediency while claiming to be guided by principles. Sorry, but you can't change your spots. You can't even see them, it appears to me.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:32:13 PMI think we've also established that Canadian Conservatism is different from US Conservatism.
US Conservatism is a unique thing for sure....
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 12:44:16 PM
No, being the one who knows exactly how gutless I think you are, I can assuredly say that you are wrong here.
I think we're talking past each other now.
Quote
Yes. You said as much yourself: "Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one." You interpreted criticism of your unwillingness to oppose anti-liberty legislation from your side as mere criticism of your lack of an opinion, and so attempted to mitigate the criticism you thought you were getting by an insipid and uninformed cursory "opinion" that you thought would obviate the need for defending yourself based on principles and courage.
You seem to be unable (or more likely unwilling) to detect sarcasm.
Quote
I don't think you understand my position, nor perhaps Berkut's.
I do. I even stated that I knew my reasons for deciding to oppose the law were different from Berkut's, and it's pretty clear that I stated reasons different from yours. I *knew* you guys would take objection to my reasons, and I did not take a the position I did in order to please either of you. If you think I did, you need to get over yourself.
QuoteYou do get shit for basing opinions on expediency while claiming to be guided by principles. Sorry, but you can't change your spots. You can't even see them, it appears to me.
Being the one who knows exactly how I formulated my opinion, I can assuredly say that you are wrong here.
Simply put, the reason I decided to formulate an opinion and the reasons for forming the opinion I did are two separate things. So put your strawman away.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2012, 12:24:21 PMAbortion is one of those issues that historically seemed to cut across party and ideological lines. I know that for the last 30 years the pro-life position has solidified behind the GOP in the US, but I don't see any ideological basis for it. As you and I have discussed the Catholic church takes generally a left-wing position on most issues, but is of course staunchly anti-abortion.
I think that because it was decided by the Supreme Court, which is politically appointed, it would almost inevitably become a partisan issue. If the only way to get rid of abortion is to change the Supreme Court then you'll take over a party to get President's who'll appoint pro-life judges and Senators who'll support them.
In this country it's for the legislature, it's a free vote and while Tories, in general, vote against abortion more than other parties, opposition is cross-party. For example, there's a pretty solid rump of devoutly Catholic old Labour votes against abortion from cities like Liverpool and Glasgow (Galloway used to be one). I think if it was still an issue in the legislatures in the US it'd be the same.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
Opposition to abortion is a pretty fundamentally conservative opinion.
This is the fallacy known as "begging the question." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
QuoteI suspect you're trying to draw me into some sort of trap here, with calling yourself conservative rather than *a* conservative. But I'll play. In what ways are you conservative?
I am not sure what the difference is between being conservative and being *a* conservative (they seem to be the adjective and noun forms of the exact same word), but I will assume that the difference is something that matters to some secret handshake group and doesn't apply to me.
I am conservative in that I oppose change for the sake of change, and hold with conserving things which have served well. I believe that, while change is necessary, change has a transaction cost that proponents of change tend to ignore, and so I support only those changes whose benefits seem likely to heavily outweigh the benefits of the existing alternatives, because i think that the law of unintended consequences bites harder on change than continuity.
Arguments that conservatives must be statists who want to impose their own religious/moral views on others is false - that's what the abortion debate is all about. I am a libertarian conservative, in that I think the best way to avoid the law of unintended consequences is to limit the power of the state to make any changes that affect the lives of its citizens, and the more effect a change will have, the harder I want it to be for the state to make it.
There is nothing fundamentally conservative about adopting laws designed to make it harder, more humiliating, or more dangerous to get an abortion. In fact, I'd say those were anti-conservative laws, which is why the Virginia Republicans amuse me so much, with their whole "Emperor has no clothes" approach to "conservatism." They appear to me to care not a whit that their new law directly violates the concept of their anti-Obama stance on the insurance mandate, which they opposed in court because in order to "preserve the choice of all Virginians from having to pay for health care they don't need, want, or can't afford" (from the preamble to the Virginia Republicans' "Virginia Health Care Freedom Act").
I think it is clear here who the real conservative is, here, and who those guys are that just claim to be conservative to get the support of gullible conservatives to pursue a campaign that is really reactionary, not conservative at all.
Santorum suspends his campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120410/us-santorum/
So long and thanks for the laughs!
I guess we were both wrong, Shielbh.
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Santorum suspends his campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120410/us-santorum/
So long and thanks for the laughs!
How sad!
Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 10, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.
Doesn't seem a compelling case to make a donation.
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 01:35:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 10, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.
Doesn't seem a compelling case to make a donation.
He's less likely to retire if he's broke. If that isn't a good reason to donate I don't know what is.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 10, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
Gingrich will stay in to do fundraising and trim down as much of that debt as he can. Once that dries up, he'll drop too.
Given Newt's ego he's probably thinking 'this is my moment!'
Given Newt's ego it's more likely he's sizing up which intern will be his next wife.
What a bizarre turn this took. Why are people telling the conservative what conservatives think? Derspeiss is a conservative, it's his ideology. Those balls of light like Berkut and Grumbler are beyond such tribal trivialities, why are they telling Derspeiss what he should think? I took a nap it's like everyone took idiot pills.
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 12:26:06 PM
You're right. I think it's just that the selfish strain of American libertarianism seem more vociferous right now... actually, not even that, but that ideological selfishness is using the language of liberty to justify their positions. I don't want to get into a "no true libertarian scotsman" situation. Sufficeth to say, I have high respect for the principle of freedom as espoused, and often enacted, by the American people at their best.
Okay. Maybe you were talking about the American Libertarian Party, which I agree seems mostly motivated by personal gain than principle. That's a tiny, tiny sliver of the libertarian movement in the US, though. I have never met one, myself.
I wonder what the vast majority of the Libertarian movement is.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 02:11:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 12:26:06 PM
You're right. I think it's just that the selfish strain of American libertarianism seem more vociferous right now... actually, not even that, but that ideological selfishness is using the language of liberty to justify their positions. I don't want to get into a "no true libertarian scotsman" situation. Sufficeth to say, I have high respect for the principle of freedom as espoused, and often enacted, by the American people at their best.
Okay. Maybe you were talking about the American Libertarian Party, which I agree seems mostly motivated by personal gain than principle. That's a tiny, tiny sliver of the libertarian movement in the US, though. I have never met one, myself.
I was mostly speaking from my impression, haphazardly gathered from the internet and various media sources. I will happily concede that my impression of American libertarianism may be vastly off-base :)
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:32:13 PMI think we've also established that Canadian Conservatism is different from US Conservatism.
US Conservatism is a unique thing for sure....
US Conservatism is neither united, nor statist, nor conservative.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F152335%2Fpolitical-pictures-he-did-the-sensible-thing.png&hash=f3be5217ddab0d19233ea50feac105e5726e5271)
Yeah.
What I thought was interesting:
QuoteA new Washington Post/ABC News poll this week showed a majority of Republican-leaning Americans — 52 percent — said Santorum should stay in the campaign, while 43 percent said he should drop out.
I mean, he was still neck-and-neck with Romney in PA, I think Rick could've won it and a few more states as well.
Maybe his daughter's health had something to do with it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 05:03:45 PM
Maybe his daughter's health had something to do with it.
Shit, I hadn't considered that. It seems quite possible - it's odd timing otherwise and she was just hospitalised again :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:01:23 PM
Yeah.
What I thought was interesting:
QuoteA new Washington Post/ABC News poll this week showed a majority of Republican-leaning Americans — 52 percent — said Santorum should stay in the campaign, while 43 percent said he should drop out.
I mean, he was still neck-and-neck with Romney in PA, I think Rick could've won it and a few more states as well.
He was losing ground in PA and one recent poll had Romney way ahead. Losing PA in spectacular fashion might've been more than he wanted to bear. Plus he could've been running out of cash. His daughter being sick could've been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 05:04:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 05:03:45 PM
Maybe his daughter's health had something to do with it.
Shit, I hadn't considered that. It seems quite possible - it's odd timing otherwise and she was just hospitalised again :(
She's fine. Well, maybe not fine but left the hospital last night.
What's wrong with Santorum's daughter?
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 05:08:00 PM
What's wrong with Santorum's daughter?
Has a genetic disorder, Trisomy 18; came down with a bout of pneumonia over the weekend apparently.
Gotta love the Readers' Comments:
QuotePraise to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Our children and family come first
God Bless Rick Santorum and his family and the majority of American Citizens.
We need his kind of people to stand up for the truth.
America was founded with the truth
Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life
Ah, yes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:07:32 PM
She's fine. Well, maybe not fine but left the hospital last night.
Yes, but she's a Santorum baby. Her going home from the hospital isn't as reliable a sign of good health as it normally is.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
He was losing ground in PA and one recent poll had Romney way ahead. Losing PA in spectacular fashion might've been more than he wanted to bear. Plus he could've been running out of cash. His daughter being sick could've been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Well, I still there there's a not insignificant number of Republicans that will be pissed they won't be able to vote for him in the coming primaries. There's still a lot of important states left. He should've hung in there, if only to continue the War On Teh Wimmin.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2012, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 06, 2012, 04:04:13 PM
In all seriousness, I think that while partisanship is as old as the hills there's a relatively new beast running around which involves an inability to compromise. I run into far more people today than I used to who seem to think "if this person/NGO/what-have-you does not agree with me on every single political issue, I cannot support them". The inability to look at something pragmatically has greatly worsened partisan rhetoric and voting patterns, IMO.
I agree with this, but don't think the "culture war" is to blame. I think his has to do with a crisis mentality. What we are seeing now is a pale comparison of the FDR era but, I think, has many of the same features: many people just don't that there is room for error, and so not-quite-right = wrong for them.
Yeah, I think that's pretty much dead-on. What seems new about it is the quantity of vitriol (enhanced, I am sure, by social media) and what feels like an enormous drop in respect for the office of the President. Having grown up in the 70s and 80s and having a memory of the often grudging respect political opponents tended to give one another, even with the spectre of Nixon about, the way people talk about and have treated Clinton, Bush, and Obama has been deplorable.
Well Clinton getting caught in his extra-marital affairs and Bush with his inability to speak in English help set a new paradigm on how we should treat our presidents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 05:08:00 PM
What's wrong with Santorum's daughter?
Has a genetic disorder, Trisomy 18; came down with a bout of pneumonia over the weekend apparently.
He didn't abort that shit? Jesus fucking christ. Mamma Palin keeping her Down's syndrome baby is one thing, but the average life span for a kid with Trisomy 18 is ~2 weeks.
You're shocked that Santorum didn't go in for an abortion? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2012, 05:51:53 PM
You're shocked that Santorum didn't go in for an abortion? :hmm:
Yes, I'm shocked that someone could be so cruel to another human being, let alone their own daughter.
But Jeebus doesn't like abortions. :(
Speaking of the Republican war on women, I'd like American lawtalkers to tell me if there's anything to this:
Apparently Oklahoma is passing a fetus personhood bill today, similar to the one Missouri passed in 1986 but with one crucial difference. The Missouri bill had a bit about "subject to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court," while the Oklahoma one does not.
This apparently leaves the Oklahoma bill open to lawsuits, the intention of which is to work its way up the chain and eventually put it before the Supreme Court, setting the stage for overturning Roe v Wade. Is that realistic? Likely? If so why or why not?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/10/oklahoma-legislature-poised-to-pass-personhood-bill
Aren't they jumping the gun? Aren't they short of a vote, or do they know something about Kennedy others don't?
Quote from: Fate on April 10, 2012, 05:48:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 05:08:00 PM
What's wrong with Santorum's daughter?
Has a genetic disorder, Trisomy 18; came down with a bout of pneumonia over the weekend apparently.
He didn't abort that shit? Jesus fucking christ. Mamma Palin keeping her Down's syndrome baby is one thing, but the average life span for a kid with Trisomy 18 is ~2 weeks.
It's Gawd's Will.
Hey, at least he's not going to have to carry an extra kid on his auto insurance.
I think Santorum should be forced to carry his campaign to term.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 10, 2012, 07:12:46 PM
I think Santorum should be forced to carry his campaign to term.
I guess you're not for abortions even in cases of mental defect?
Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2012, 06:07:29 PM
Speaking of the Republican war on women, I'd like American lawtalkers to tell me if there's anything to this:
Apparently Oklahoma is passing a fetus personhood bill today, similar to the one Missouri passed in 1986 but with one crucial difference. The Missouri bill had a bit about "subject to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court," while the Oklahoma one does not.
This apparently leaves the Oklahoma bill open to lawsuits, the intention of which is to work its way up the chain and eventually put it before the Supreme Court, setting the stage for overturning Roe v Wade. Is that realistic? Likely? If so why or why not?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/10/oklahoma-legislature-poised-to-pass-personhood-bill
Seems pretty short-sighted, as in bad strategy. I would not put money on the court overturning it with the current sitting members.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 07:03:45 PM
It's Gawd's Will.
Hey, at least he's not going to have to carry an extra kid on his auto insurance.
Well, he is using he kid as a reason not to donate to charity.
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 10, 2012, 07:12:46 PM
I think Santorum should be forced to carry his campaign to term.
I guess you're not for abortions even in cases of mental defect?
lulz on both counts.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Well Clinton getting caught in his extra-marital affairs and Bush with his inability to speak in English help set a new paradigm on how we should treat our presidents.
Not really their fault. Clinton had a much snoopier press and even special investigators whereas earlier Presidential philanderers just had to avoid PDAs. And Bush was mangling the English language long before he was elected, so voters knew what they were getting.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Well Clinton getting caught in his extra-marital affairs and Bush with his inability to speak in English help set a new paradigm on how we should treat our presidents.
Not really their fault. Clinton had a much snoopier press and even special investigators whereas earlier Presidential philanderers just had to avoid PDAs. And Bush was mangling the English language long before he was elected, so voters knew what they were getting.
Clinton should have recognized that the times were different. Bush could have taken lessons a la King's Speech.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
He was losing ground in PA and one recent poll had Romney way ahead. Losing PA in spectacular fashion might've been more than he wanted to bear. Plus he could've been running out of cash. His daughter being sick could've been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Well, I still there there's a not insignificant number of Republicans that will be pissed they won't be able to vote for him in the coming primaries. There's still a lot of important states left. He should've hung in there, if only to continue the War On Teh Wimmin.
I'd be disappointed as well if I were on your side.
Oh, I don't know. The way it stand now, a Democrat is going to win either way. Even if he happens to have been nominated by GOP.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Oh, I don't know. The way it stand now, a Democrat is going to win either way. Even if he happens to have been nominated by GOP.
:yeahright:
Kerry 2, the Revenge of Long Face.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Oh, I don't know. The way it stand now, a Democrat is going to win either way. Even if he happens to have been nominated by GOP.
:lol: No kidding.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:22:44 PM
Kerry 2, the Revenge of Long Face.
Other than he will likely lose like him (and they spent time in Mass), I'm not really sure I get the comparison. Kerry's number 1 bit was that he was very boring and uninspiring. Mitt on the other hand is very good at getting people of all kinds to dislike him. He generates a lot more emotion that Kerry. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:27:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:22:44 PM
Kerry 2, the Revenge of Long Face.
Other than he will likely lose like him (and they spent time in Mass), I'm not really sure I get the comparison. Kerry's number 1 bit was that he was very boring and uninspiring. Mitt on the other hand is very good at getting people of all kinds to dislike him. He generates a lot more emotion that Kerry. :lol:
Some in your Party disagree http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-web-ad-romney-and-kerry-have-french-connection-110695.html
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:27:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:22:44 PM
Kerry 2, the Revenge of Long Face.
Other than he will likely lose like him (and they spent time in Mass), I'm not really sure I get the comparison. Kerry's number 1 bit was that he was very boring and uninspiring. Mitt on the other hand is very good at getting people of all kinds to dislike him. He generates a lot more emotion that Kerry. :lol:
Some in your Party disagree http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-web-ad-romney-and-kerry-have-french-connection-110695.html
:lol:
Yes and Gingrich is an idiot who got smacked down on that ad because he was found to have used french language sources in his thesis. If you're going to try a card, at least show the whole play.
So?
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:07:32 PM
She's fine. Well, maybe not fine but left the hospital last night.
Yes, but she's a Santorum baby. Her going home from the hospital isn't as reliable a sign of good health as it normally is.
:XD:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 08:20:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Oh, I don't know. The way it stand now, a Democrat is going to win either way. Even if he happens to have been nominated by GOP.
:yeahright:
That's overstating it to an extreme, but as a lefty, I did always feel uncomfortable with the Santorum strategic voting since I really do feel much, much more comfortable with Romney than Santorum, if it comes to it. I think it will be interesting to see if either Romney or Obama can really bring out the base, since neither of them are right or left enough. I predict: low turnout.
Don't spoil it man.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 10:25:36 PM
Don't spoil it man.
In '08 Romney ran against McCain from the right. He hasn't moved leftward since then. Passing a health care bill in Massachusetts doesn't make him a Democrat.
Wait, I didn't know that Romney was to the right of McCain. Anyway, the whole GOP shifted to the right. Ideas that were mainstream in the GOP have now become liberal because Obama might support them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Passing a health care bill in Massachusetts doesn't make him a Democrat.
It does to Republicans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 06:01:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Passing a health care bill in Massachusetts doesn't make him a Democrat.
It does to Republicans.
No, we're giving him a mulligan on that.
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2012, 09:03:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 06:01:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Passing a health care bill in Massachusetts doesn't make him a Democrat.
It does to Republicans.
No, we're giving him a mulligan on that.
Perhaps you are, but what about your less sensible colleges?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2012, 09:11:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2012, 09:03:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 06:01:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Passing a health care bill in Massachusetts doesn't make him a Democrat.
It does to Republicans.
No, we're giving him a mulligan on that.
Perhaps you are, but what about your less sensible colleges?
Like what, the Big 12?
Dammit all.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 11:41:40 PM
Wait, I didn't know that Romney was to the right of McCain.
Oh yeah. Romney decided to run as the social conservative candidate in 2008 - that's partly what's caused his sincerity problems.
I do think this was Santorum's strongest criticism actually. If you think healthcare will be a big issue for Republicans, and most Republicans do, then it is very difficult for Romney to run against it. Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare and Romney was, just a few years ago, pushing it as a national solution.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Oh, I don't know. The way it stand now, a Democrat is going to win either way. Even if he happens to have been nominated by GOP.
What, is Rick Perry getting the nomination?
(https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/images/MomsMug.jpg)
(https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/images/MomsBanner.jpg)
Barack Obama?
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
Barack Obama?
Yes, the GOP's War on Teh Wommyn has now become the Dem's War On Stay At Home Mommies!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 11:30:58 AM
(https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/images/MomsBanner.jpg)
No way this is real. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 09:12:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2012, 09:11:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2012, 09:03:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 06:01:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Passing a health care bill in Massachusetts doesn't make him a Democrat.
It does to Republicans.
No, we're giving him a mulligan on that.
Perhaps you are, but what about your less sensible colleges?
Like what, the Big 12?
:(
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 13, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
No way this is real. :lol:
https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/momsdoworkmug.htm
Order your mug.
"Governor Romney calls the President out of touch. Hey, how many of y'all have a Swiss bank account?"—Vice President Joe Biden in New Hampshire (4/12/2012)
Go Joe! :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 13, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
No way this is real. :lol:
https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/momsdoworkmug.htm
Order your mug.
God bless the RNC.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
Barack Obama?
Yes, the GOP's War on Teh Wommyn has now become the Dem's War On Stay At Home Mommies!
What did he do to start this courageous crusade on those moochers?
Maybe if they had Stayed In School they wouldn't have to Stay At Home?
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 11:50:58 AM
What did he do to start this courageous crusade on those moochers?
Somebody not associated with the reelection campaign, the DNC or Der Weiss Haus said Mrs. Romney never worked a day in her life. And somehow, it's the negro's fault. :lol:
Do moms ride inside?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 11:53:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 11:50:58 AM
What did he do to start this courageous crusade on those moochers?
Somebody not associated with the reelection campaign, the DNC or Der Weiss Haus said Mrs. Romney never worked a day in her life. And somehow, it's the negro's fault. :lol:
Clearly a super secret agent advancing his negro agenda. HE MUST BE STOPPED.
This is the GOP response to the Republican War on Women, to win more favourable numbers with female voters?
Is it going to work? It seems pretty feeble.
Quote from: Jacob on April 13, 2012, 12:27:02 PM
This is the GOP response to the Republican War on Women, to win more favourable numbers with female voters?
Is it going to work? It seems pretty feeble.
It could but they need a few more Democrats saying stupid things for it to get traction.
In all honesty, I'm a little disappointed in seeing the Democrats rolling over on this one; her criticism of Ann Romney was valid, particularly from the economic perspective; but that got lost in the flurry of Teh War on Teh Motherhood.
When I was child, I barely saw my mother on weekends, as she worked midnights and slept during the day. My sister and I had to play quietly. We'd wait until she got home on Christmas morning to open our presents.
Mrs. Romney, short of going through the labor pains of dropping 5 little shits, didn't have to worry about any of that. Plenty of nannies and maids to help her out.
Hell, my brother-in-law and his siblings had maids and nannies growing up. His stepmother didn't have to work, either. Unless you consider 3 Bloody Marys a day at the club working.
So, there's a difference between moms and millionaire moms, and that's what got lost in all this. Ann Romney a stay-at-home Mommy? Nigga, please.
It is not about substance here. This is about sound bites, gotchas, and spin. The Democrats whole 'war on women' slam on the GOP is a little unusual since it is about actual laws getting passed. This is politicians generally try to do nothing, much less pass big pieces of legislation, during an election year.
Mittens had fun at the annual NRA convention. He represents Freedom, and says he will never apologize abroad for America. USA USA USA
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 02:13:02 PM
Mittens had fun at the annual NRA convention. He represents Freedom, and says he will never apologize abroad for America. USA USA USA
Why? George Bush did when the Chinese had one our flight crews. I suppose this should read "don't go overseas for the next four years cause if things go to shit Romney ain't going waste the words that can get you out alive".
I really find the 'Obama's apologising for America' a bizarre line. In terms of Republicans actually getting ready for the election I think it's almost as self-harming as the idea that Obama's not very bright and can't speak without a teleprompter.
They need to work on better lines, because these are demonstrably untrue and don't ring with what anyone else sees.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 02:46:11 PM
I really find the 'Obama's apologising for America' a bizarre line. In terms of Republicans actually getting ready for the election I think it's almost as self-harming as the idea that Obama's not very bright and can't speak without a teleprompter.
They need to work on better lines, because these are demonstrably untrue and don't ring with what anyone else sees.
Well, the mouth breathers in Dumbfuckistan are sucking it up, and that's all that matters.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 12:45:06 PM
It is not about substance here.
Well, no. It's theater to fuck around with the emotions of women voters. The Limbaugh thing and the Romney thing both.
OMG they hate you more than we do!!!1111 :lol:
I particularly enjoyed both Mitt's and Ann's "shout outs" to Moms everywhere today. Because that's just what the NRA is all about.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativesforamerica.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fa4d1a__mom.jpg&hash=8563f8ceb5ba20dcb2560d3342ed1b023af32cd6)
YEAH PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATIONS AS METAPHOR
QuoteFoster Friess: 'I Hope Obama's Teleprompters Are Bulletproof'
During an appearance on Fox Business Network Wednesday, Foster Friess--the billionaire backer of former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum--said he hopes President Obama's "teleprompters are bulletproof."
"There are a lot of things that haven't been hammered at because Rick and Mitt have been going at each other," the retired mutual fund manager said before he made his comment directed at the president. He later told ABC News that he regretted his words immediately after he said them.
Talking about Obama's teleprompter use had become one of Santorum's favorite digs at the president.
"I've always believed that when you run for President of the United States, it should be illegal to read off a teleprompter, because all you're doing is reading someone else's words to people," Santorum said at a March campaign stop in Mississippi.
Friess pledged to support Mitt Romney now that Santorum is out of the race. That will mean some more cash for Romney, but potentially more on-air blunders as well. In February, when Santorum decided to make contraception a campaign issue, Friess told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that "back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly."
Friess' comment isn't the first time a quip about shooting the president has become a story during the campaign cycle. Earlier this year, at a campaign stop at a shooting range in Louisiana, a woman shouted, "Pretend it's Obama," while Santorum was taking target practice.
"It's a very terrible and horrible remark and I'm glad I didn't hear it," Santorum said, regarding the incident.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 13, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
No way this is real. :lol:
https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/momsdoworkmug.htm
Order your mug.
Looks like the perfect Mother's Day gift.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
So, there's a difference between moms and millionaire moms, and that's what got lost in all this. Ann Romney a stay-at-home Mommy? Nigga, please.
Yep this is where they fucked it up.
Seedy's on fire today! :lol: Getting nervous?
Quote from: derspiess on April 13, 2012, 07:36:25 PM
Seedy's on fire today! :lol: Getting nervous?
You have to be nuts not to be.
Quote from: katmai on April 13, 2012, 07:30:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
So, there's a difference between moms and millionaire moms, and that's what got lost in all this. Ann Romney a stay-at-home Mommy? Nigga, please.
Yep this is where they fucked it up.
There's a whole demographic of poorly-educated (but not poor) women out there, who don't think of themselves as "minorities" and so who are natural republican voters, but the republicans don't seem to have a clue as to how to pick them up. I don't get it. The Republicans have overwhelmingly got the uneducated "white male" vote, and I don't understand how they could be missing so badly with their female counterparts. The fact that republican-leaning males like to refer to women as whores can't explain the whole phenomenon.
Women are so doomed. First the Republican war on women's contraceptives, and now the Democrat's war on stay at home moms. :(
Quote from: derspiess on April 13, 2012, 07:36:25 PM
Seedy's on fire today! :lol: Getting nervous?
I do: Lean Forward.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 02:46:11 PM
I really find the 'Obama's apologising for America' a bizarre line. In terms of Republicans actually getting ready for the election I think it's almost as self-harming as the idea that Obama's not very bright and can't speak without a teleprompter.
They need to work on better lines, because these are demonstrably untrue and don't ring with what anyone else sees.
Why do you think it's bizarre and self-harming?
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2012, 07:47:57 PM
There's a whole demographic of poorly-educated (but not poor) women out there, who don't think of themselves as "minorities" and so who are natural republican voters, but the republicans don't seem to have a clue as to how to pick them up. I don't get it. The Republicans have overwhelmingly got the uneducated "white male" vote, and I don't understand how they could be missing so badly with their female counterparts. The fact that republican-leaning males like to refer to women as whores can't explain the whole phenomenon.
Maybe because they've been convinced they're not allowed to vote?
"Billy Bob Ray, he does all tha' thinkin' for both of us."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2012, 08:49:17 PMWhy do you think it's bizarre and self-harming?
It depends which you mean the 'apology tour of the world' or the teleprompter. They're both wrong, I think it's relatively easy to demonstrate otherwise and I don't think they fit with what most non-Republicans see in Obama.
It's kind of like the whole dangerous radical friend of Bill Ayres thing. While that line of attack excited the base I don't think it was at all connected with the sort of impression most people have of Obama. So they hear a line about him being mates with the Weather Underground, they look at Obama and don't recognise it. Then the attacker ends up looking worse.
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2012, 06:05:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 13, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
No way this is real. :lol:
https://www.gop.com/momsdoworkmug/momsdoworkmug.htm
Order your mug.
Looks like the perfect Mother's Day gift.
Maybe I'll get one for my mom. If I can figure out which address she's at these days.
Hey Tim!
http://www.redbubble.com/people/basvanoerle
Get your Cosmonewt T-shirt here!
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 08:55:24 PM
It depends which you mean the 'apology tour of the world' or the teleprompter. They're both wrong, I think it's relatively easy to demonstrate otherwise and I don't think they fit with what most non-Republicans see in Obama.
It's kind of like the whole dangerous radical friend of Bill Ayres thing. While that line of attack excited the base I don't think it was at all connected with the sort of impression most people have of Obama. So they hear a line about him being mates with the Weather Underground, they look at Obama and don't recognise it. Then the attacker ends up looking worse.
I don't see how you would easily demonstrate the 'apology world tour' is wrong. That one is a question of tone and perception.
I also don't see how an attack on an aspect of Obama's life that some voters aren't particularly familiar with will necessarily backfire. When the Jeremiah Wright videos first surfaced people didn't say, "I've never heard of this guy before, the folks that are playing these videos are obviously dickheads."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 12:05:03 PMI don't see how you would easily demonstrate the 'apology world tour' is wrong. That one is a question of tone and perception.
A Republican candidate brings it up in a debate or in an ad and Obama can forcefully rebut it and then mention bin Laden, Awlaki, Gadaffi and, indeed, much of al-Qaeda. It'll make the Republican look foolish. He should work on a better more nuanced attack on foreign policy.
QuoteI also don't see how an attack on an aspect of Obama's life that some voters aren't particularly familiar with will necessarily backfire. When the Jeremiah Wright videos first surfaced people didn't say, "I've never heard of this guy before, the folks that are playing these videos are obviously dickheads."
It's a matter of tone and style. 'An apology tour for America' is a big attack. Similarly the Palin lines towards the end of the campaign were rhetorically very aggressive.
Wright's a different situation - that's why I didn't use that as an example. That was a very real issue that Obama addressed and I think the attacks based on that were generally well done and legitimate.
With Bill Ayres it didn't work. The whole line that he was a radical 'palling around with terrorists' or the Gingrich obsession with Obama as an 'Alinskyite Marxist' doesn't work for the reasons I've given. Similarly I think that if the Clinton campaign had gone for Glenn Beck style lines about Obama 'hating white people' on the basis of Wright that attack would have petered out. The story would have been more about their attack than Wright or Obama - this is what happened with Palin.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2012, 12:18:59 PM
A Republican candidate brings it up in a debate or in an ad and Obama can forcefully rebut it and then mention bin Laden, Awlaki, Gadaffi and, indeed, much of al-Qaeda. It'll make the Republican look foolish. He should work on a better more nuanced attack on foreign policy.
Obama has cards he can play back. That's not the same thing as saying the attack is patently wrong and instantly makes the messenger look foolish.
QuoteIt's a matter of tone and style. 'An apology tour for America' is a big attack. Similarly the Palin lines towards the end of the campaign were rhetorically very aggressive.
Wright's a different situation - that's why I didn't use that as an example. That was a very real issue that Obama addressed and I think the attacks based on that were generally well done and legitimate.
With Bill Ayres it didn't work. The whole line that he was a radical 'palling around with terrorists' or the Gingrich obsession with Obama as an 'Alinskyite Marxist' doesn't work for the reasons I've given. Similarly I think that if the Clinton campaign had gone for Glenn Beck style lines about Obama 'hating white people' on the basis of Wright that attack would have petered out. The story would have been more about their attack than Wright or Obama - this is what happened with Palin.
First you said they were wrong, then you said that it didn't fit people's perceptions, now your're raising another issue of the manner in which they're done.
The main reason Wright had traction and Ayers didn't was because there was no Ayers footage to air.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 01:06:12 PM
The main reason Wright had traction and Ayers didn't was because there was no Ayers footage to air.
Precisely. And there's no "world apology tour" and "speaking other people's lines on a teleprompter" footage, either.
I'm no great fan of Obama, and I'm undecided as to whom I will vote for in November, but I think Romney is definitely off on the wrong foot. He's going to have to stop speaking nonsense if he wants me to take him seriously as a candidate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 01:06:12 PMObama has cards he can play back. That's not the same thing as saying the attack is patently wrong and instantly makes the messenger look foolish.
Then we disagree. I think that attack will make Romney look ridiculous in the eyes of non-Republicans.
QuoteFirst you said they were wrong, then you said that it didn't fit people's perceptions, now your're raising another issue of the manner in which they're done.
They're wrong, they don't fit with people's perceptions - the reason for that is because they're so rhetorically over the top that they backfire on the attacker. I said all of that in my first post on this.
The difference with Wright, in my view, was that it was right, it shook people's perception of Obama. It was stronger because the Clinton campaign handled it well.
QuoteThe main reason Wright had traction and Ayers didn't was because there was no Ayers footage to air.
There's a whole bloody documentary about Ayers and the Weather Underground. Unlike with Wright there's footage of actual victims too. There's a lot of footage of Ayers.
It didn't get traction, as I say, because it wasn't really true and the attack was over the top and too aggressive. The connection was more tenuous and Obama by that point had already won lots of votes, he looked like a suburban dad not a terrorist - the same goes for Gingrich's obsession with Alinsky.
OK on the first point. Let's see how it plays. Although I doubt we'll see a survey on how the public feels about Obama's Cairo speech and the Russia reset button.
Ayers didn't work because it didn't match the perception of Obama as a suburban dad (city townhouse dad actually) yet Wright worked because it shook perceptions. Contradiction!
I think to really hit you need footage of Ayers and Obama together. Are you aware of any?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 03:31:26 PMAyers didn't work because it didn't match the perception of Obama as a suburban dad (city townhouse dad actually) yet Wright worked because it shook perceptions. Contradiction!
Not a contradiction. Something has to be credible for the attack to work. The attack about Ayers didn't because it wasn't really true, he didn't look like a terrorist and it was over the top. So this backfired particularly on Palin.
The Clinton line on Wright was far more controlled and nuanced. It was true and shook perceptions of him, people wondered whether they knew him. Had they followed the Palin approach and gone for a Glenn Beck style incendiary remark about 'Obama hates white people', then they would have been the story. I don't think it was strong enough to shake the perception that Obama isn't a racist.
The bigger the accusation or insinuation you make the less likely it is to seem credible, to gel with people's perceptions. Do it right and it can work.
QuoteI think to really hit you need footage of Ayers and Obama together. Are you aware of any?
No. But I don't think the most important Wright footage was of him and Obama together.
To be clear Shelf, are we talking about "the apology thing" and "the Bill Ayers thing" in general terms, or in reference to some specific attack ads or talking points that have been launched?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativesforamerica.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fa4d1a__mom.jpg&hash=8563f8ceb5ba20dcb2560d3342ed1b023af32cd6)
Looks like a candidate for water boarding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 04:19:10 PM
To be clear Shelf, are we talking about "the apology thing" and "the Bill Ayers thing" in general terms, or in reference to some specific attack ads or talking points that have been launched?
Specific talking points as used by the Romney and McCain campaigns (though the Ayers thing was largely Palin going rogue I think).
The McCain attack ads on Ayers were yanked *not* because the public said these ads are clearly wrong and we think McCain is an idiot for airing them (which is fortunate for the public since it was information from the public record) but rather because McCain was unhappy with the hatred towards Obama that the ads were generating in the Republican base.
Can you give me some more information on Romney's "apology" attack? I haven't heard of it until now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 05:08:53 PMThe McCain attack ads on Ayers were yanked *not* because the public said these ads are clearly wrong and we think McCain is an idiot for airing them (which is fortunate for the public since it was information from the public record) but rather because McCain was unhappy with the hatred towards Obama that the ads were generating in the Republican base.
I wasn't referring to an ad - I didn't know there'd been an ad campaign. I was talking about Palin's repeated attacks at her events on Ayers-Obama. As I say I think this was after she'd gone rogue.
QuoteCan you give me some more information on Romney's "apology" attack? I haven't heard of it until now.
The basic is something along the lines of this 'The president went about this all wrong. He went around the world and apologized for America.' He riffs on that in different ways in his stump speech, sometimes saying Obama travelled around the world 'to apologise for America'. His book is called 'No Apology' and the entire foreign policy section is about alleged 'apology tours'. The triumphant end of every Romney speech on foreign policy is when he says 'I will not apologize for America!'
As I say I think it's a mistake. I don't think it's the way most voters see Obama, it's easily rebutted and it's a bit silly - like the teleprompter thing. Romney should work on another line for foreign policy attacks.
I was expecting something truly zany the way you were carrying on Shelf. That's not a new line, it was first used early in Obama's presidency when he was, you know, travelling around the world apologizing for America. :P
It can't be rebuted (and wasn't back then) because there's nothing that's factually incorrect. It can be countered, in the ways you described. But the fact that Obama has smited several of our enemies doesn't refute the claim that he apologized.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 07:14:59 PMI was expecting something truly zany the way you were carrying on Shelf.
Not zany. I think it's just a line that won't work and could cause more damage to Romney.
QuoteThat's not a new line, it was first used early in Obama's presidency when he was, you know, travelling around the world apologizing for America. :P
It can't be rebuted (and wasn't back then) because there's nothing that's factually incorrect.
It was wrong early in his Presidency and it's wrong now. What are your examples of this apology tour?
I thought I already mentioned the Cairo speech.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 07:42:30 PM
I thought I already mentioned the Cairo speech.
Okay. And where's the apology in it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Okay. And where's the apology in it?
Paragraphs 3 and 6, as well as the preamble and annexes E, F and J.
I don't remember the damn thing word for word Shelf. I do remember some mention of previous behavior by the US towards Arabs and/or Muslims that Obama said was no good and that he was going to change.
I think that the reset with Russia implied an apology.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 14, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
I don't remember the damn thing word for word Shelf. I do remember some mention of previous behavior by the US towards Arabs and/or Muslims that Obama said was no good and that he was going to change.
First of all that's not an apology. Secondly you don't need to have read the whole thing. But if you're saying he's going around the world apologising for America, you should at least know the bit where he says that.
I can't see any apology in the speech, here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09
The closest I can see to what you're describing is the brief, fleeting mention of the 1953 coup in Iran, which I'd hardly describe as an apology:
QuoteThis issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
Quote from: Neil on April 14, 2012, 07:51:51 PM
I think that the reset with Russia implied an apology.
I think a worldwide tour to apologise for America means more than 'implied'. But I disagree. It was similar to what Obama said about Iran and his entire foreign policy message in the election which was that it was best to draw a line under the past and just approach the issues afresh. It was basically a foreign policy version of the 'on the one hand, on the other hand - common ground' structure that he uses in all of his speeches.
Look, Sheilbh, none of that matters. He is planning to take away our guns.
Quote from: PDH on April 14, 2012, 10:11:25 PM
Look, Sheilbh, none of that matters. He is planning to take away our guns.
And our wimmin!
Thanks for the link Shelf. I would count Iran 53, Cold War proxies, torture, Gitmo, and only caring about oil as apologies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 07:52:40 AM
Thanks for the link Shelf. I would count Iran 53, Cold War proxies, torture, Gitmo, and only caring about oil as apologies.
Okay. I disagree. I've quoted the line on Iran which doesn't read as an apology to me. The line on oil:
QuoteMany Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
Is again barely an apology.
I think he comes closest to an apology on torture and Gitmo, but he campaigned against them and the line seems to be more that they were ways that America sort-of let herself down. So this:
QuoteAnd finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
Still doesn't seem like an apology to me. As with the others it's more a statement of intent of the sort I'm sure Bush made - saying America under Clinton was too withdrawn from the world but will now engage. For there to be an apology I think there needs to be a sentence between 'our traditions and our ideals' and 'we are taking concrete actions' that expresses some form of regret or guilt.
What I think of as an apology is something like Bush's comments on Abu Ghraib when he visited Jordan:
QuoteWe also talked about what has been on the TV screens recently, not only in our own country, but overseas -- the images of cruelty and humiliation. I told His Majesty as plainly as I could that the wrongdoers will be brought to justice, and that the actions of those folks in Iraq do not represent the values of the United States of America.
I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners, and the humiliation suffered by their families. I told him I was equally sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America. I assured him Americans, like me, didn't appreciate what we saw, that it made us sick to our stomachs. I also made it clear to His Majesty that the troops we have in Iraq, who are there for security and peace and freedom, are the finest of the fine, fantastic United States citizens, who represent the very best qualities of America: courage, love of freedom, compassion, and decency.
It includes the word sorry, acknowledges that something wrong happened, regrets it and says it won't happen again. That's an apology.
Sheilbh, does a sentence have to contain the word sorry to be an apology to you? This sounds awfully apologetic to me (and I don't really care whether he apologized or not): "The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals."
I don't get it. Is the argument that Obama is "weak" because he has on a couple of occasions admitted that the actions of previous adminstrations were wrong? And that Romney, if elected, would never do that? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2012, 09:34:25 AM
Sheilbh, does a sentence have to contain the word sorry to be an apology to you?
No, but it helps. I'd say you need to admit something was wrong (generally the passive voice won't do), that you regret or feel guilt over it and say that it won't happen again. Anything less than that is a politicians doing a non-apology 'I'm sorry if any offence was caused'.
I mean to take that example use that structure in an ordinary sense. X was a provocation that meant, understandably, I went too far and failed to meet my otherwise very high standards. If that's an apology it's a very passive aggressive one.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2012, 09:34:25 AM
Sheilbh, does a sentence have to contain the word sorry to be an apology to you?
No, but it helps. I'd say you need to admit something was wrong (generally the passive voice won't do), that you regret or feel guilt over it and say that it won't happen again. Anything less than that is a politicians doing a non-apology 'I'm sorry if any offence was caused'.
I mean to take that example use that structure in an ordinary sense. X was a provocation that meant, understandably, I went too far and failed to meet my otherwise very high standards. If that's an apology it's a very passive aggressive one.
But that's not what he said. He said X was a provocation but sometimes that led us contrary to our ideals. I'm taking steps to change course by forbidding Y and ordering Z to stop.
Has the statement of wrong doing and steps designed to prevent those things from happening again.
Quote from: Malthus on April 15, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
I don't get it. Is the argument that Obama is "weak" because he has on a couple of occasions admitted that the actions of previous adminstrations were wrong? And that Romney, if elected, would never do that? :lol:
That's how I understand it too.
Puzzling, really.
Sarkozy, a most arrogant and tough guy macho wannabe (must have something to do with his height), apologized just last week about the treatment of Algerians fighting on the side of France during the civil war over there. No biggie.
Apologizing is bad. It means one might have to either take responsibility for actions or to actually have done something bad. It also involves icky feelings.
Quote from: PDH on April 15, 2012, 10:45:59 AM
Apologizing is bad. It means one might have to either take responsibility for actions or to actually have done something bad. It also involves icky feelings.
It isn't a question of whether it is bad or not, it is a question of whether it makes for effective politics to try to paint Obama as some kind of crypto-Euro running around apologizing for America.
Personally, I don't really get it - the only people who will swallow something like that are people who think Obama is out to get their guns, and probably isn't actually an American, and might even be a Muslim. They are already pretty well locked up in the "Anyone but Obama" camp, so I am not sure who this line of attack is trying to appeal to...
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
Personally, I don't really get it - the only people who will swallow something like that are people who think Obama is out to get their guns, and probably isn't actually an American, and might even be a Muslim a nigger. They are already pretty well locked up in the "Anyone but Obama" camp, so I am not sure who this line of attack is trying to appeal to...
Fixed. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 15, 2012, 11:30:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
Personally, I don't really get it - the only people who will swallow something like that are people who think Obama is out to get their guns, and probably isn't actually an American, and might even be a Muslim a nigger. They are already pretty well locked up in the "Anyone but Obama" camp, so I am not sure who this line of attack is trying to appeal to...
Fixed. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemecrunch.com%2Fmeme%2F5FH%2Fnot-sure-if-serious-fry%2Fimage.png&hash=461c14b5e156249c7412c60e8870dbe0402e77e9)
Well he is correct. That is the root of the "Obama is a Muslim" type thing.
That was my point. :yes:
Just watched Game Change. A big case of ego massage as it confirms my view that
Clinton > McCain > Obama
Obama+Biden >>>>>>> McCain+Palin
Nearly anyone + Nearly anyone else >>>>>>>>>>> Just about anyone+Sarah Palin.
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2012, 11:26:09 AMPersonally, I don't really get it - the only people who will swallow something like that are people who think Obama is out to get their guns, and probably isn't actually an American, and might even be a Muslim. They are already pretty well locked up in the "Anyone but Obama" camp, so I am not sure who this line of attack is trying to appeal to...
This is my point. It works for the base. Everyone else, like independent voters, don't recognise that characterisation of Obama. He's not a crypto-Euro touring the world 'apologising for America'. In my opinion it also seems so strong a line that it damages Romney's credibility. This is why he should work on a better, more nuanced attack in foreign policy.
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
It isn't a question of whether it is bad or not, it is a question of whether it makes for effective politics to try to paint Obama as some kind of crypto-Euro running around apologizing for America.
Sure it's bad. Politics has become the personal on the large stage.
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2012, 12:03:14 PM
Nearly anyone + Nearly anyone else >>>>>>>>>>> Just about anyone+Sarah Palin.
I actually liked McCain. I didn't think he was right in 2008 though. 2000, sure. Sarah Palin is worse then useless, though. Well not totally. She got Katmai that job.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 12:25:15 PM
I actually liked McCain. I didn't think he was right in 2008 though. 2000, sure. Sarah Palin is worse then useless, though. Well not totally. She got Katmai that job.
Dude, why don't you believe him when he says he's never done porn? :unsure:
I think McCain's doing better and more important work as a Senator though. Him and Graham have, admirably, actually followed through on their neo-conservative belief in Arab democracy - most other Republicans actually seem disappointed if it doesn't involve bombing someone.
They've led the way in engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood in trips to Egypt and as the Brothers guides in Washington. It's really important stuff that I'm glad is being led by Republicans and that probably couldn't be done from the White House.
Like McCain's lead on banning torture this is him at his best.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 15, 2012, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 12:25:15 PM
I actually liked McCain. I didn't think he was right in 2008 though. 2000, sure. Sarah Palin is worse then useless, though. Well not totally. She got Katmai that job.
Dude, why don't you believe him when he says he's never done porn? :unsure:
McCain never said he didn't do porn.
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 11:52:00 AM
Just watched Game Change. A big case of ego massage as it confirms my view that
Clinton > McCain > Obama
Obama+Biden >>>>>>> McCain+Palin
Except McCain didn't die, so it turns out you were wrong.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 12:25:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2012, 12:03:14 PM
Nearly anyone + Nearly anyone else >>>>>>>>>>> Just about anyone+Sarah Palin.
I actually liked McCain. I didn't think he was right in 2008 though. 2000, sure. Sarah Palin is worse then useless, though. Well not totally. She got Katmai that job.
In hindsight, I don't think he was right for either year. He just doesn't have the temperament for the job, he's too much of a bomb thrower, and he's that way due to personality rather than political image. He also never struck me as gifted intellectually (granted, anyone can look good against GWB).
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 11:52:00 AM
Just watched Game Change. A big case of ego massage as it confirms my view that
Clinton > McCain > Obama
Obama+Biden >>>>>>> McCain+Palin
Except McCain didn't die, so it turns out you were wrong.
Of course he also wasn't subject to the pressures of being president either...
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 11:52:00 AM
Just watched Game Change. A big case of ego massage as it confirms my view that
Clinton > McCain > Obama
Obama+Biden >>>>>>> McCain+Palin
Except McCain didn't die, so it turns out you were wrong.
Palin never had any reason to assassinate him :moon:
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 11:52:00 AM
Just watched Game Change. A big case of ego massage as it confirms my view that
Clinton > McCain > Obama
Obama+Biden >>>>>>> McCain+Palin
Except McCain didn't die, so it turns out you were wrong.
Palin never had any reason to assassinate him :moon:
That would never happen, as all the institutions of government would have no problem putting down a Palinite coup, especially the military.
Does it stroke your ego to be foolish?
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
That would never happen, as all the institutions of government would have no problem putting down a Palinite coup, especially the military.
Does it stroke your ego to be foolish?
Palin: Jeesus rode dinosaurs, you betcha!
McCain: Oh, my dicky ticker!!!!!111oneoneoen
silly stuff requried emoticons.
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 03:12:16 PM
Palin: Jeesus rode dinosaurs, you betcha!
McCain: Oh, my dicky ticker!!!!!111oneoneoen
McCain and Jesus were students together in Grumbler's school.
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
That would never happen, as all the institutions of government would have no problem putting down a Palinite coup, especially the military.
Does it stroke your ego to be foolish?
Palin: Jeesus rode dinosaurs, you betcha!
McCain: Oh, my dicky ticker!!!!!111oneoneoen
silly stuff requried emoticons.
McCain was the Republican nominee for President. I'm sure he dealt with people at least as retarded as Palin in order to win the approval of the party machine. He also served in the Senate with Santorum. If idiocy could kill him, it would have.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 15, 2012, 10:11:34 AM
Sarkozy, a most arrogant and tough guy macho wannabe (must have something to do with his height), apologized just last week about the treatment of Algerians fighting on the side of France during the civil war over there. No biggie.
The difference being that the current French population is probably not very divided on whether the Algerians fighting for France were treated decently or not.
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 03:21:53 PM
McCain was the Republican nominee for President. I'm sure he dealt with people at least as retarded as Palin in order to win the approval of the party machine. He also served in the Senate with Santorum. If idiocy could kill him, it would have.
The Senate and the GOP was baby shit compared to what that man had been through in life.
Quote from: Neil on April 15, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 15, 2012, 11:52:00 AM
Just watched Game Change. A big case of ego massage as it confirms my view that
Clinton > McCain > Obama
Obama+Biden >>>>>>> McCain+Palin
Except McCain didn't die, so it turns out you were wrong.
Yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 15, 2012, 10:11:34 AM
Sarkozy, a most arrogant and tough guy macho wannabe (must have something to do with his height), apologized just last week about the treatment of Algerians fighting on the side of France during the civil war over there. No biggie.
The difference being that the current French population is probably not very divided on whether the Algerians fighting for France were treated decently or not.
The French government kept much of that secret for a long, long time. Hell they banned the film "The Battle of Algiers" for a while. Even if you are right what is your point? A bad act is bad even if it's popular.
Quote from: DGuller on April 15, 2012, 01:07:15 PM
In hindsight, I don't think he was right for either year. He just doesn't have the temperament for the job, he's too much of a bomb thrower, and he's that way due to personality rather than political image. He also never struck me as gifted intellectually (granted, anyone can look good against GWB).
Unfair assessment. McCain's track record throughout his years in the Senate display a practical and pragmatic approach to both domestic and foreign policy, with zero zealotry on any major issue.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 06:47:22 PM
The French government kept much of that secret for a long, long time. Hell they banned the film "The Battle of Algiers" for a while. Even if you are right what is your point? A bad act is bad even if it's popular.
I don't think you understand what we are talking about.
Okay, enlighten me.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 07:59:30 PM
Okay, enlighten me.
Attitudes to the Harkis (Algerians fighting for France) are different from attitudes to the FLN (Algerians fighting against France). In both cases French attitudes have moved on since the 60s.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 08:01:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 07:59:30 PM
Okay, enlighten me.
Attitudes to the Harkis (Algerians fighting for France) are different from attitudes to the FLN (Algerians fighting against France). In both cases French attitudes have moved on since the 60s.
What was Yi's point?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 08:07:34 PM
What was Yi's point?
Yi and Zoups were talking about the Harkis. It's safe to assume that France has reconciled itself to the fact that her treatment of the Harkis was shameful - they were fighting for France and they were abandoned during Algerian independence, often to the firing squad.
Yi said that that's a different sort issue than one that's recent or divisive. The French relationship with the FLN and Algeria is the latter (they almost had a civil war over it) and it would even now be extraordinary for a French President to apologise to Algeria or the FLN leadership.
Would you be willing to answer all of Raz' questions for me Shelf? Maybe a small retainer? :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 08:16:40 PM
Would you be willing to answer all of Raz' questions for me Shelf? Maybe a small retainer? :)
Why don't you just turn Raz off? Easy to do, and you'll feel better.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 15, 2012, 08:19:17 PM
Why don't you just turn Raz off? Easy to do, and you'll feel better.
I'm a sociable person.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2012, 08:07:34 PM
What was Yi's point?
Yi and Zoups were talking about the Harkis. It's safe to assume that France has reconciled itself to the fact that her treatment of the Harkis was shameful - they were fighting for France and they were abandoned during Algerian independence, often to the firing squad.
Yi said that that's a different sort issue than one that's recent or divisive. The French relationship with the FLN and Algeria is the latter (they almost had a civil war over it) and it would even now be extraordinary for a French President to apologise to Algeria or the FLN leadership.
I thought this was about apologies in general. :mellow:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 15, 2012, 08:19:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 08:16:40 PM
Would you be willing to answer all of Raz' questions for me Shelf? Maybe a small retainer? :)
Why don't you just turn Raz off? Easy to do, and you'll feel better.
Yi isn't a pussy.
Sometimes you have to remove the irritant.
Also Yi wins over half debates anyway.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 15, 2012, 08:19:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2012, 08:16:40 PM
Would you be willing to answer all of Raz' questions for me Shelf? Maybe a small retainer? :)
Why don't you just turn Raz off? Easy to do, and you'll feel better.
:yes:
I don't understand all the Raz hate.
Is it because he crushes all your arguments Yip and Berkie?
Quote from: katmai on April 15, 2012, 09:47:40 PM
I don't understand all the Raz hate.
Is it because he crushes all your arguments Yip and Berkie?
Grumbler doesn't like me because I ruin his trolls.
I wonder how soon the Romney campaign will announce it will get rid of the Department of the Treasury if elected, in order to eliminate the Secret Service.
Romney is super popular here in Utah.
That's just lovely.
QuoteThe Republican National Committee says it raised $13.7 million in March, its best month of the cycle. The group had $32.7 million in cash at the end of the month but still carries $9.9 million left of the huge debt from last cycle.
A mystery donor gave $10 million to the pro-Republican nonprofit Crossroads GPS to run ads attacking President Obama. The huge contribution to Crossroads, a group founded with the help of Karl Rove, puts this anonymous donor among the top political givers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2012, 08:10:48 PM
Yi said that that's a different sort issue than one that's recent or divisive. The French relationship with the FLN and Algeria is the latter (they almost had a civil war over it) and it would even now be extraordinary for a French President to apologise to Algeria or the FLN leadership.
I could see Flanby or Mélencon (for instance in Marseille :rolleyes:) doing it. :frog: :hmm:
Quote from: Jaron on April 15, 2012, 10:37:09 PM
Romney is super popular here in Utah.
I wonder why that would be. :hmm:
Ted Nugent outlines the stakes of the upcoming election:
Quote from: Ted Nugent"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. If you can't galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we're done. We'll be a suburb of Indonesia next year. Our president, attorney general, our vice president, Hillary Clinton — they're criminals, they're criminals. We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/04/ted-nugent-goes-nuts-on-obama-120674.html
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 06:12:26 PM
Ted Nugent outlines the stakes of the upcoming election:
Quote from: Ted Nugent"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. If you can't galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we're done. We'll be a suburb of Indonesia next year. Our president, attorney general, our vice president, Hillary Clinton — they're criminals, they're criminals. We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/04/ted-nugent-goes-nuts-on-obama-120674.html
Ted Nugent voted "man most likely to be outfitted for padded cell". :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2012, 06:15:03 PM
Ted Nugent voted "man most likely to be outfitted for padded cell". :lol:
I'm informed that he's on the board of directors of the NRA.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2012, 06:15:03 PM
Ted Nugent voted "man most likely to be outfitted for padded cell". :lol:
I'm informed that he's on the board of directors of the NRA.
So the outfitting for a padded cell will have to be done
carefully.
Hillary is not a criminal. :angry:
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2012, 06:15:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 06:12:26 PM
Ted Nugent outlines the stakes of the upcoming election:
Quote from: Ted Nugent"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. If you can't galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we're done. We'll be a suburb of Indonesia next year. Our president, attorney general, our vice president, Hillary Clinton — they're criminals, they're criminals. We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/04/ted-nugent-goes-nuts-on-obama-120674.html
Ted Nugent voted "man most likely to be outfitted for padded cell". :lol:
That ol' draft-dodging rascal can't resist the emo even at age 63. :cool:
Dumbass.
QuoteFor telling National Rifle Association members over the weekend that "I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" if President Obama is re-elected, rocker Ted Nugent has now attracted the attention of the Secret Service.
"We are aware of the incident, and we are conducting appropriate follow-up," Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary says.
Nugent, who is known for his conservative views, love of guns and for saying things about liberals that many find offensive, isn't backing down.
"I will stand by my speech," he said on the Dana Loesch radio show Tuesday. "It was 100 percent positive. It's about 'we the people' taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars [Obama has] appointed."
"I've never in my life threatened anyone's life," he added.
Judge for yourself. The NRA has posted video of Nugent's appearance. Fast forward to about the 5:00 mark if you want to focus on the "dead or in jail" comment.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Nugent infamously and profanely expressed his opinion of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
His latest comment prompted Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to refer to Nugent as a "Romney surrogate" — the rocker has endorsed presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign issued a statement Tuesday saying that "divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil."
So we can now add Nugent's "dead or in jail" remark to the expanding list of campaign controversies, which last week saw the addition of Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen's comment that Ann Romney has "never worked a day in her life."
Stranglehold is also 5 minutes too long.
From a law enforcement perspective, there certainly is a bona fide reason to find out why he'd "either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 09:01:47 AM
From a law enforcement perspective, there certainly is a bona fide reason to find out why he'd "either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Yeah. It is almost certain that the blowhard is too gutless to carry out the implied threat, but you can't take any chances.
I'm kinda surprised not to have heard anything from the NRA on this. The NRA seems to comment on every even-faintly-ridiculous thing said by its opponents, so should be conscious of the need to at least distance itself from the most outrageous of its own groupies, especially when it has elevated them to its board of directors. I know it is an organization by and for emos, but it has, in the past, worked hard to conceal that fact. Allowing an emo to be their front man kinda undoes all their camouflage work.
Nuge :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 09:01:47 AM
From a law enforcement perspective, there certainly is a bona fide reason to find out why he'd "either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Or make it a self-fulfilling prophecy for that matter.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 09:01:47 AM
From a law enforcement perspective, there certainly is a bona fide reason to find out why he'd "either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Yeah. It is almost certain that the blowhard is too gutless to carry out the implied threat, but you can't take any chances.
Exactly. Which is why they should file an emergency petition on him immediately, and have him undergo at least a 72 hour assessment for suicidal ideations.
We get it. You're an ex-cop.
Sex-cop?
Quote from: The Brain on April 18, 2012, 03:28:08 PM
Sex-cop?
I'm not sure he's ever told us what department he worked in. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2012, 03:26:32 PM
We get it. You're an ex-cop.
And I know you have Cat Scratch Fever in your CD player.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 09:01:47 AM
From a law enforcement perspective, there certainly is a bona fide reason to find out why he'd "either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Yeah. It is almost certain that the blowhard is too gutless to carry out the implied threat, but you can't take any chances.
Exactly. Which is why they should file an emergency petition on him immediately, and have him undergo at least a 72 hour assessment for suicidal ideations.
Pro tip for you - if you actually do that, make sure you bring the person before an actual medical professional, and don't just have them locked up in cells for 24 or 72 hours (depending on jurisdiction).
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 03:46:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 09:01:47 AM
From a law enforcement perspective, there certainly is a bona fide reason to find out why he'd "either be dead or in jail by this time next year."
Yeah. It is almost certain that the blowhard is too gutless to carry out the implied threat, but you can't take any chances.
Exactly. Which is why they should file an emergency petition on him immediately, and have him undergo at least a 72 hour assessment for suicidal ideations.
Pro tip for you - if you actually do that, make sure you bring the person before an actual medical professional, and don't just have them locked up in cells for 24 or 72 hours (depending on jurisdiction).
Drop 'em off at the ER. It'll take them 72 hours just to get to him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 03:37:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2012, 03:26:32 PM
We get it. You're an ex-cop.
And I know you have Cat Scratch Fever in your CD player.
I hear it enough at Bengals games to where that's not necessary :mellow:
Princesca knows I like Cat Scratch Fever so she bought me a Nugent CD once. I didn't really like anything else on it, except for one song that was good but seemed to go on forever (and I think it was just an instrumental). I also like High Enough, but technically that's Damn Yankees, not Nuge on his own.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 03:46:37 PM
Pro tip for you - if you actually do that, make sure you bring the person before an actual medical professional, and don't just have them locked up in cells for 24 or 72 hours (depending on jurisdiction).
In Cole County they just hand cuff you to a chair.
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2012, 07:05:16 PM
Princesca knows I like Cat Scratch Fever so she bought me a Nugent CD once. I didn't really like anything else on it, except for one song that was good but seemed to go on forever (and I think it was just an instrumental). I also like High Enough, but technically that's Damn Yankees, not Nuge on his own.
Yahoo, redneck beer rock. You and Otto cruising for pussy in the primer gray bitchin' Camero at Skateland on a Friday night.
I'll get my trans-am. And my Foghat CD's.
Camaro :yuk:
I'll take one of these however:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carwalls.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2F2012-Dodge-Challenger.jpg&hash=d0fa008e3a0e74cb262171788cd95e7a302a37da)
Princesca even told me I could get one. :cool:
I don't own any of The Nuge's music, but I like his show on the Outdoor Channel. I have to turn off those hunting shows after a while because it pisses me off that people get paid to go hunting and I'm not one of them.
Oh, and is the Secret Service meeting with Nugent at a strip club? Or are they keeping it more discreet?
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Oh, and is the Secret Service meeting with Nugent at a strip club? Or are they keeping it more discreet?
They learned their lesson over that shit this week.
They're meeting him in Vegas.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 08:53:24 AM
"I will stand by my speech," he said on the Dana Loesch radio show Tuesday. "It was 100 percent positive. It's about 'we the people' taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars [Obama has] appointed."
What exactly is done by the government to destroy the American dream? I keep reading that according to consrvatives the Democrat presidency takes away freedoms and betrays the founding fathers' ideals - but rarely if ever how so. I mean, isn't the Patriot Act and the actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security more invasive than anything Obama has done/plans to do?
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 01:12:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 08:53:24 AM
"I will stand by my speech," he said on the Dana Loesch radio show Tuesday. "It was 100 percent positive. It's about 'we the people' taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars [Obama has] appointed."
What exactly is done by the government to destroy the American dream? I keep reading that according to consrvatives the Democrat presidency takes away freedoms and betrays the founding fathers' ideals - but rarely if ever how so. I mean, isn't the Patriot Act and the actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security more invasive than anything Obama has done/plans to do?
Are you trying to be rational? Crazy european.
It's pretty simple. The problem most GOPtards have with Obama is that he's black.
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 01:12:45 AM
What exactly is done by the government to destroy the American dream? I keep reading that according to consrvatives the Democrat presidency takes away freedoms and betrays the founding fathers' ideals - but rarely if ever how so. I mean, isn't the Patriot Act and the actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security more invasive than anything Obama has done/plans to do?
It's empty rhetoric that a lot of people dutifully repeat without putting any thought into it. To hardcore Republicans and Democrats in this country, politics is kind of like their religion (perhaps in addition to their 'real' one).
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2012, 05:08:24 AM
To hardcore Republicans and Democrats in this country, politics is kind of like their religion (perhaps in addition to their 'real' one).
Football?
Nope, NASCAR. :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2012, 06:23:43 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2012, 05:08:24 AM
To hardcore Republicans and Democrats in this country, politics is kind of like their religion (perhaps in addition to their 'real' one).
Football?
:lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on April 19, 2012, 02:23:43 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 01:12:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 08:53:24 AM
"I will stand by my speech," he said on the Dana Loesch radio show Tuesday. "It was 100 percent positive. It's about 'we the people' taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars [Obama has] appointed."
What exactly is done by the government to destroy the American dream? I keep reading that according to consrvatives the Democrat presidency takes away freedoms and betrays the founding fathers' ideals - but rarely if ever how so. I mean, isn't the Patriot Act and the actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security more invasive than anything Obama has done/plans to do?
Are you trying to be rational? Crazy european.
It's pretty simple. The problem most GOPtards have with Obama is that he's black.
Yeah, because GOPtards are so deferential to white Democrats who do/say the same things Obama has done/said.
You & Seedy repeating the same thing over & over won't make it true, sorry :(
I don't think Republicans make the claim that Harry Reid is an illegal Alien.
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2012, 08:52:50 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 19, 2012, 02:23:43 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 01:12:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2012, 08:53:24 AM
"I will stand by my speech," he said on the Dana Loesch radio show Tuesday. "It was 100 percent positive. It's about 'we the people' taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars [Obama has] appointed."
What exactly is done by the government to destroy the American dream? I keep reading that according to consrvatives the Democrat presidency takes away freedoms and betrays the founding fathers' ideals - but rarely if ever how so. I mean, isn't the Patriot Act and the actions of the Dept. of Homeland Security more invasive than anything Obama has done/plans to do?
Are you trying to be rational? Crazy european.
It's pretty simple. The problem most GOPtards have with Obama is that he's black.
Yeah, because GOPtards are so deferential to white Democrats who do/say the same things Obama has done/said.
You & Seedy repeating the same thing over & over won't make it true, sorry :(
It really is bizarre, this almost manic obsession with the imagined racism behind the crazy anti-Obama crowd. Not that there isn't some element of racism there I am sure, but to sum it all up as a strictly black thing is compulsive in it's ridiculousness.
These are the same people who accused Clinton of having someone murdered. They don't need to wait for a black Dem President to start talking crazy.
The constant focus on race says more about Seedy and Zoup's opinions on the race of the President than they do on Ted Nugent.
There is room for both interpretations. IMO, the racism issue is a real issue, and it's not minor. There is a real subliminal message being constantly sent that Obama is not like one of us. That said, it's an add-on issue, and things wouldn't be fundamentally different if a Democrat of any other color and any other ancestry were elected.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 09:07:26 AM
It really is bizarre, this almost manic obsession with the imagined racism behind the crazy anti-Obama crowd. Not that there isn't some element of racism there I am sure, but to sum it all up as a strictly black thing is compulsive in it's ridiculousness.
These are the same people who accused Clinton of having someone murdered. They don't need to wait for a black Dem President to start talking crazy.
The constant focus on race says more about Seedy and Zoup's opinions on the race of the President than they do on Ted Nugent.
Attempts to appeal to the "otherness" of Obama are appeals to racism. Or at least some form of bigotry.
If you evidence that this message exists and is meaningful is so weak that you have to characterize it as "subliminal" then I suspect the existence of said message is more a figment of your imagination than anything else.
In other words, it might be real, but it probably is in fact pretty damn minor.
About as significant in the overall scheme of things as the idea that Clinton murdered James McDougal. It is real, but it is very minor.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 10:31:00 AM
If you evidence that this message exists and is meaningful is so weak that you have to characterize it as "subliminal" then I suspect the existence of said message is more a figment of your imagination than anything else.
It's subliminal not because it's weak, but because overt racism is out of fashion these days. Therefore, some level of subtlety is required.
Saying somebody is "not like us" is not overt racism.
51 percent of likely Republican primary voters think Obama was born abroad. That's not minor. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/02/16/poll-birthers-now-make-up-a-majority-of-gop-primary-voters
Here's some polling form Republican strongholds. Mississippi and Alabama. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-poll-obamas-a-muslim-to-many-gop-voters-in-alabama-mississippi-20120312
QuoteReporting from Washington — After years of battling false claims and viral emails alleging that he is a Muslim, President Obama hasn't gotten far among Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi – about half still believe he is Muslim and about 1 in 4 believes his parents' interracial marriage should have been illegal, a new poll shows.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2012, 10:44:22 AM
Saying somebody is "not like us" is not overt racism.
No, but saying someone is bad because he's not like us is bigotry.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 10:46:16 AM
51 percent of likely Republican primary voters think Obama was born abroad. That's not minor. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/02/16/poll-birthers-now-make-up-a-majority-of-gop-primary-voters
Here's some polling form Republican strongholds. Mississippi and Alabama. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/12/news/la-pn-poll-obamas-a-muslim-to-many-gop-voters-in-alabama-mississippi-20120312
QuoteReporting from Washington — After years of battling false claims and viral emails alleging that he is a Muslim, President Obama hasn't gotten far among Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi – about half still believe he is Muslim and about 1 in 4 believes his parents' interracial marriage should have been illegal, a new poll shows.
That doesn't make sense. I was informed that the South is now a model of racial enlightenment, and has surged far ahead of the North when it comes to combatting racial prejudice.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 10:47:22 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2012, 10:44:22 AM
Saying somebody is "not like us" is not overt racism.
No, but saying someone is bad because he's not like us is bigotry.
Only in a very bland sense. I may be "bigoted" against someone who has deeply-held leftwing views (and therefore not like me)-- just the same as someone on the left might be bigoted against me because I'm a rightwinger.
I think you guys are imagining almost all of the racial element that motivates the anti-Obama crowd. If you want something more palpable to criticize, go after the "he's a communist" hyperbole.
What about saying "I don't like him because he's a Muslim". Would that count as bigoted in your book?
So, besides racism (or not), what's the factual beef with Obama from Conservatives? What makes him worse than Bush?
Mind you, I wasn't a friend of W, but neither did I endorse ZOMGBUSHITLER!
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 11:38:33 AM
So, besides racism (or not), what's the factual beef with Obama from Conservatives? What makes him worse than Bush?
Mind you, I wasn't a friend of W, but neither did I endorse ZOMGBUSHITLER!
Well half believe he's a Muslim and they don't like Muslims. Also 1/4 Republicans in Mississippi don't approve of him being born due to the interacial thing. That's a major stumbling block to acceptance.
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 11:38:33 AM
So, besides racism (or not), what's the factual beef with Obama from Conservatives? What makes him worse than Bush?
Besides his policies being further to the left?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2012, 11:56:53 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 11:38:33 AM
So, besides racism (or not), what's the factual beef with Obama from Conservatives? What makes him worse than Bush?
Besides his policies being further to the left?
Which ones? His Healthcare plan was based on one enacted by a Republican. The stimulus thing isn't anything new. We have Stimulus stuff all the time. His policy on immigration doesn't differ much from Bush's. It can't be the Spending as the over spending was rampant under Bush and they didn't have a problem with it then. Hell, Obama cut most people's taxes.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 10:31:00 AM
If you evidence that this message exists and is meaningful is so weak that you have to characterize it as "subliminal" then I suspect the existence of said message is more a figment of your imagination than anything else.
In other words, it might be real, but it probably is in fact pretty damn minor.
Not necessarily. It's just dog whistle politics. In Australia the Howard government passed lots of anti-immigration legislation that was popular. In doing so they used language and seemed to be appealing for racist votes. This caused a lot of criticism because very few people like overt racism. But the Howard government wanted the votes of racists.
Lynton Crosby who was his chief political advisor worked on what he dog whistle phrases. They're words and phrases that people who are fundamentally bigoted pick up on and get the idea, rightly or wrongly, that that candidate's 'one of us'. But they're plausibly deniable. It can be used in all types of bigotry too. The success of political correctness is that we generally no longer tolerate overt bigotry, but it still exists and a smart politician will more than likely try to appeal to it.
The Tories hired Lynton Crosby for the 2005 campaign. His dog whistle was a bit too strong in British politics and they came up with the slogan 'are you thinking what we're thinking?'
Having said all that I don't know the extent it's a problem with Obama. But it's incorrect to say that appeals to bigots are weak and meaningless just because they're subliminal.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 12:04:14 PM
Which ones? His Healthcare plan was based on one enacted by a Republican. The stimulus thing isn't anything new. We have Stimulus stuff all the time. His policy on immigration doesn't differ much from Bush's. It can't be the Spending as the over spending was rampant under Bush and they didn't have a problem with it then. Hell, Obama cut most people's taxes.
Bush wasn't looking for a healthcare plan and Obama's stimulus went further than his. Also, Bush appointed Alito and Roberts while Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor. Throw in minor differences in posture in foreign policy, rhetoric about social issues, etc... There's plenty of room to prefer one or the other.
Bush did pass some healthcare reform. Remember? Medicare part D or whatever it was called. Back in 2008 Romney's Healthcare plan was a feather in his cap. Now it's an albatross. McCain had a healthcare plan as well. And as CdM has shown us, most people don't even know who Roberts is.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
What about saying "I don't like him because he's a Muslim". Would that count as bigoted in your book?
Possibly, but it's more confused/misinformed than anything.
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
What about saying "I don't like him because he's a Muslim". Would that count as bigoted in your book?
Possibly, but it's more confused/misinformed than anything.
In what possible way could that be meant that wasn't bigoted?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 10:31:00 AM
If you evidence that this message exists and is meaningful is so weak that you have to characterize it as "subliminal" then I suspect the existence of said message is more a figment of your imagination than anything else.
In other words, it might be real, but it probably is in fact pretty damn minor.
Not necessarily. It's just dog whistle politics. In Australia the Howard government passed lots of anti-immigration legislation that was popular. In doing so they used language and seemed to be appealing for racist votes. This caused a lot of criticism because very few people like overt racism. But the Howard government wanted the votes of racists.
Lynton Crosby who was his chief political advisor worked on what he dog whistle phrases. They're words and phrases that people who are fundamentally bigoted pick up on and get the idea, rightly or wrongly, that that candidate's 'one of us'. But they're plausibly deniable. It can be used in all types of bigotry too. The success of political correctness is that we generally no longer tolerate overt bigotry, but it still exists and a smart politician will more than likely try to appeal to it.
The Tories hired Lynton Crosby for the 2005 campaign. His dog whistle was a bit too strong in British politics and they came up with the slogan 'are you thinking what we're thinking?'
Having said all that I don't know the extent it's a problem with Obama. But it's incorrect to say that appeals to bigots are weak and meaningless just because they're subliminal.
You've said this before - but the problem with this line of argument is that you are only making an arguing that it is possible to be racist without it being obvious.
You haven't established that it is actually happening, no have you provided us what these "dog whistle" statements are in this case that you think are the double secret code for "We hate him because he is black!"
Rather the issue came up because there are people who keep trying to dismiss any criticism of Obama with "Oh, you just hate him BECAUSE RACIST ZOMG!".
Yes, I get that it is possible to use plausibly deniable racist comments to appeal to racists. The problem here is not that though, nor is that even the topic of the debate.
Seedy and Zoupa response to any criticims of Obama with an accusation of racism, over and over again.
DG claims that this is legitimate, not because he has shown that the actual criticism in question is in fact racist, but because he imagines there to be racism, and explains his lack of actual evidence by saying that the evidence is "subliminal" - in other words, he has created a hypothesis, demanding that we accept it as true, while also claiming that his hypothesis is definitionally (is that a word?) untestable.
So no - the fact that some Brits were a bunch of racists once and politicians once appeals to racists doesn't really add anything - we know that there have been politicians appealing to race in the past both overtly and less overtly. But that doesn't mean it is happening now, nor does it refute the observation that people constantly running around bringing up Obama's race probably don't really have to go so far from home to find some racism.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
What about saying "I don't like him because he's a Muslim". Would that count as bigoted in your book?
Possibly, but it's more confused/misinformed than anything.
In what possible way could that be meant that wasn't bigoted?
I don't think this is a proper use of the term bigoted, for one.
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed adjective
I guess that means I'm bigoted against the wealthy and mouth-breathing citizens of Dumbfuckistan that vote GOP.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 02:33:48 PMYou've said this before - but the problem with this line of argument is that you are only making an arguing that it is possible to be racist without it being obvious.
No. I'm saying that politicians can play for bigots' votes without saying anything explicitly bigoted.
QuoteYou haven't established that it is actually happening, no have you provided us what these "dog whistle" statements are in this case that you think are the double secret code for "We hate him because he is black!"
That's because I wasn't trying to. I actually said I don't know the extent this is the case with Obama.
Off the top of my head I think Gingrich has come closest.
QuoteYes, I get that it is possible to use plausibly deniable racist comments to appeal to racists. The problem here is not that though, nor is that even the topic of the debate.
You said that if it was subliminal chances are it was a figment of someone's imagination. That's not the case. There are political consultants who sell their experience in pitching 'subliminal' messages to bigoted voters as to all other voters. So it does exist and it's quite expensive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 03:08:33 PM
You've said this before - but the problem with this line of argument is that you are only making an arguing that
QuoteYes, I get that it is possible to use plausibly deniable racist comments to appeal to racists. The problem here is not that though, nor is that even the topic of the debate.
You said that if it was subliminal chances are it was a figment of someone's imagination. That's not the case. There are political consultants who sell their experience in pitching 'subliminal' messages to bigoted voters as to all other voters. So it does exist and it's quite expensive.
Uggh, you are not listening - or you are, and hence the edit job to cut out the parts of my post that deal with exactly this.
If in fact the best evidence you can come up with that this is happening is to claim that it is happening, and the reason you cannot provide any actual evidence is that it is "subliminal" (which is code for "double secret unevidenced evidence) then in fact it is rather likely that it is in your imagination.
Yes, it is *possible* that there really are these secret expensive operatives running around planting subliminal messages of racism, but it isn't likely, especially since nobody has even provided an example of these supposed "dog whistle" phrases that the racists in us will understand. It is apparently so secret, that even with the dog whistle detection active, we can't even hear it - one has to suspect that anything so deeply subliminal is probably not being picked up by the dogs either.
Except Zoupa, Seeday, a Dgullible, of course.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Except Zoupa, Seeday, a Dgullible, of course.
How mature.
"Seeday". Sounds like one of Saddam's kids. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
"Seeday". Sounds like one of Saddam's kids. :rolleyes:
Or maybe how one of your townsfolk would call you on the street if he knew you by your Languish nickname.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2012, 03:37:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Except Zoupa, Seeday, a Dgullible, of course.
How mature.
Well we have explained this to Berkut several times before, it just doesn't take. Hell, I've demonstrated that Republican strategists have used these dog whistle politics to court racist voters. I quoted them in saying that they did that. Shelf is wrong in saying it's Subliminal. That's not the right word. Politicians use phrases like "He has a Kenyan mindset" or "He's a Welfare thug" to tell racist voters "I'm with you on this. I feel the same way you do on race". Berkut doesn't want it to be true so he doesn't listen.
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 11:37:54 AM
What about saying "I don't like him because he's a Muslim". Would that count as bigoted in your book?
Possibly, but it's more confused/misinformed than anything.
I think you missed the point. Saying "I hate muslims" is an example of bigotry. It is a more socially acceptable bigotry then saying "I hate black people", and so it serves as a convenient stand in. If a person says "I hate Jews, or I hate white people" he is a bigot. Since the unsaid assumption with calling Obama a Muslim is that being a Muslim is bad, then those people are in fact bigots.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 04:04:02 PM
I think you missed the point. Saying "I hate muslims" is an example of bigotry. It is a more socially acceptable bigotry then saying "I hate black people", and so it serves as a convenient stand in. If a person says "I hate Jews, or I hate white people" he is a bigot. Since the unsaid assumption with calling Obama a Muslim is that being a Muslim is bad, then those people are in fact bigots.
Fine, but in Obama's case it's more of an issue that the confused ignoramuses think he's Muslim than the fact that they may hate Muslims.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 03:49:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2012, 03:37:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Except Zoupa, Seeday, a Dgullible, of course.
How mature.
Well we have explained this to Berkut several times before, it just doesn't take. Hell, I've demonstrated that Republican strategists have used these dog whistle politics to court racist voters. I quoted them in saying that they did that. Shelf is wrong in saying it's Subliminal. That's not the right word. Politicians use phrases like "He has a Kenyan mindset" or "He's a Welfare thug" to tell racist voters "I'm with you on this. I feel the same way you do on race". Berkut doesn't want it to be true so he doesn't listen.
How about "Food Stamp President". Is that one of them?
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Uggh, you are not listening - or you are, and hence the edit job to cut out the parts of my post that deal with exactly this.
:lol: The edit job was because I'd only written my first sentence and 'That's because I wasn't trying to' when I pressed post.
QuoteIf in fact the best evidence you can come up with that this is happening is to claim that it is happening, and the reason you cannot provide any actual evidence is that it is "subliminal" (which is code for "double secret unevidenced evidence) then in fact it is rather likely that it is in your imagination.
Yes, it is *possible* that there really are these secret expensive operatives running around planting subliminal messages of racism, but it isn't likely, especially since nobody has even provided an example of these supposed "dog whistle" phrases that the racists in us will understand. It is apparently so secret, that even with the dog whistle detection active, we can't even hear it - one has to suspect that anything so deeply subliminal is probably not being picked up by the dogs either.
That's why it's a successful strategy if pulled off well.
But I did name one famous consultant. Lynton Crosby was Howard's campaign manager and is well known as the guy who led the way with dog-whistling. It's worth saying it's not just a way of appealing to bigotry. I think Crosby used it to attract pro-life votes in Australia too. As the name indicates it's something the rest of the electorate won't necessarily notice but will attract the voters it's designed to his. It's a message that if you said in a normal way would possibly repel more voters than it would attract but if said indirectly enough excites its target without the mainstream of voters noticing.
In terms of race it's not too far off what Lee Atwater said:
'You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."'
I disagree that it's getting rid of the racial problem but as a way of using language I think that's accurate. But I think the point Jeffrey Goldberg makes (article below) is true. This already looks like a more racially infused campaign than 2008. In large part I think that's because of the decency of McCain, but equally, probably, the crudeness of Gingrich who I think spends a lot of time dog-whistling.
QuoteHow about "Food Stamp President". Is that one of them?
I think Newt is the worst. His attacks on an 'anti-colonial Kenyan' mindset and on Obama as a 'food stamp President' are racially loaded.
I think this Jeffrey Goldberg article on it is pretty good:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/how-to-listen-for-racism-on-the-campaign-trail-jeffrey-goldberg.html
Lulz, Mittens holds a rally today criticizing Obama's economic policies on manufacturing in front of a gypsum factory that was closed during the Bush Administration. :nelson:
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2012, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 04:04:02 PM
I think you missed the point. Saying "I hate muslims" is an example of bigotry. It is a more socially acceptable bigotry then saying "I hate black people", and so it serves as a convenient stand in. If a person says "I hate Jews, or I hate white people" he is a bigot. Since the unsaid assumption with calling Obama a Muslim is that being a Muslim is bad, then those people are in fact bigots.
Fine, but in Obama's case it's more of an issue that the confused ignoramuses think he's Muslim than the fact that they may hate Muslims.
I think it's fair to say they don't like Muslims. But if you want to think that over half the GOP are "confused ignoramuses", that's fine. I feel the same way. I suppose a fair question is why so many GOP opinion makers and politicians actively cultivate this confused state?
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Yes, it is *possible* that there really are these secret expensive operatives running around planting subliminal messages of racism, but it isn't likely, especially since nobody has even provided an example of these supposed "dog whistle" phrases that the racists in us will understand. It is apparently so secret, that even with the dog whistle detection active, we can't even hear it - one has to suspect that anything so deeply subliminal is probably not being picked up by the dogs either.
Except Zoupa, Seeday, a Dgullible, of course.
Yes, we're just seeing things that aren't there. :lol:
QuoteBachmann: Obama 'waving a tar baby in the air' on gas prices
By Devin Henry | 04:50 pm
WASHINGTON — President Obama is "waving a tar baby over his head" by blaming oil speculators for the rising price of gasoline, Rep. Michele Bachmann said in an interview released Wednesday.
Bachmann was discussing oil prices with The Shark Tank, a conservative news website from Florida. She said Obama was a "complete and utter fraud" for blaming oil speculators in part for the rising cost of gas when he hasn't supported policies that Republicans say could help bring prices down.
"This is just about waving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem," Bachmann said, adding later: "The president is a complete and utter fraud and a hypocrite on this issue, with all due respect to the president."
The "tar baby" remark is a reference to a doll made of tar used to trap Br'er Rabbit in an Uncle Remus folktale, and has come to represent a sticky situation, which was what Bachmann was trying to say, spokeswoman Becky Rogness said.
But the term has negative racial connotations, as well. Politico has a recap of politicians who have used the phrase (and, in some cases, who have subsequently apologized for it), including Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry and, most recently, Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, who said associating with Obama was like "touching a tar baby and you get it, you're stuck, and you're a part of the problem now and you can't get away."
Rogness said Bachmann's remark was meant to be innocuous.
"The Congresswoman values all human life – regardless of race, color or creed," she said in an email. "If you listen to the interview, Rep. Bachmann was making a point about the President's poor understanding of oil prices, which has nothing to do with race. The President doesn't understand the oil market and, hence, has gotten himself into a sticky situation."
I like the Song of the South as much as the next guy, but I know when not to use tar baby references in public.
John Kerry even used the tar baby phrase! OMG! He must be a racist too! ;)
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
John Kerry even used the tar baby phrase! OMG! He must be a racist too! ;)
Kerry didn't use it when referring to a nigger. Bit of a difference.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 05:56:32 PM
I think it's fair to say they don't like Muslims. But if you want to think that over half the GOP are "confused ignoramuses", that's fine. I feel the same way. I suppose a fair question is why so many GOP opinion makers and politicians actively cultivate this confused state?
That's a cheap shot and misrepresentation of the truth on your part. It's also a reminder of why it's pointless to try & have a serious discussion with you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
John Kerry even used the tar baby phrase! OMG! He must be a racist too! ;)
Kerry didn't use it when referring to a nigger. Bit of a difference.
Not really. The phrase tar baby in the way Bachman and Kerry used it refers to something that is negative but which sticks to you and you can't get rid of it.
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
John Kerry even used the tar baby phrase! OMG! He must be a racist too! ;)
Kerry didn't use it when referring to a nigger. Bit of a difference.
Not really. The phrase tar baby in the way Bachman and Kerry used it refers to something that is negative but which sticks to you and you can't get rid of it.
Yeah, OK Professor Sytax, but you lose a bit on the nuance side: when referring to a black man,
it just doesn't sound good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
Yeah, OK Professor Sytax, but you lose a bit on the nuance side: when referring to a black man, it just doesn't sound good.
At least not in the US, where everybody is fucking stupid thanks to decades of idiocy from assholes who want to bring back slavery and then more idiocy from 'civil rights warriors' who are more interested in milking the disaffection of the blacks for votes than doing anything to help anybody.
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2012, 08:17:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
Yeah, OK Professor Sytax, but you lose a bit on the nuance side: when referring to a black man, it just doesn't sound good.
At least not in the US, where everybody is fucking stupid thanks to decades of idiocy from assholes who want to bring back slavery and then more idiocy from 'civil rights warriors' who are more interested in milking the disaffection of the blacks for votes than doing anything to help anybody.
I'd mention something similar about Indians for you to relate to, but you killed them all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 08:24:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2012, 08:17:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
Yeah, OK Professor Sytax, but you lose a bit on the nuance side: when referring to a black man, it just doesn't sound good.
At least not in the US, where everybody is fucking stupid thanks to decades of idiocy from assholes who want to bring back slavery and then more idiocy from 'civil rights warriors' who are more interested in milking the disaffection of the blacks for votes than doing anything to help anybody.
I'd mention something similar about Indians for you to relate to, but you killed them all.
But then who do I keep prosecuting every day? They sure
look like indians... :unsure:
:rolleyes: Mop up operation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
John Kerry even used the tar baby phrase! OMG! He must be a racist too! ;)
Kerry didn't use it when referring to a nigger. Bit of a difference.
Not really. The phrase tar baby in the way Bachman and Kerry used it refers to something that is negative but which sticks to you and you can't get rid of it.
Yeah, OK Professor Sytax, but you lose a bit on the nuance side: when referring to a black man, it just doesn't sound good.
Right, which is exactly the point - it is "racism" because YOU SAY SO, not because the person saying it is being racist.
And you keep repeating it over and over and over again, no matter what the criticism is, because you want there to be racism, because it is such a very effective ad hom.
But it is also cheap and juvenile.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 10:09:58 PM
Right, which is exactly the point - it is "racism" because YOU SAY SO, not because the person saying it is being racist.
And you keep repeating it over and over and over again, no matter what the criticism is, because you want there to be racism, because it is such a very effective ad hom.
But it is also cheap and juvenile.
That's OK, big guy, you've proved your not racist because you ignore it. :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2012, 10:09:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 19, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
John Kerry even used the tar baby phrase! OMG! He must be a racist too! ;)
Kerry didn't use it when referring to a nigger. Bit of a difference.
Not really. The phrase tar baby in the way Bachman and Kerry used it refers to something that is negative but which sticks to you and you can't get rid of it.
Yeah, OK Professor Sytax, but you lose a bit on the nuance side: when referring to a black man, it just doesn't sound good.
Right, which is exactly the point - it is "racism" because YOU SAY SO, not because the person saying it is being racist.
And you keep repeating it over and over and over again, no matter what the criticism is, because you want there to be racism, because it is such a very effective ad hom.
But it is also cheap and juvenile.
I don't know. I agree that Seedy is over the top on this, but...if one uses a term that ones knows people will perceive as having racial connotations and then use it anyway, it is curious. Of course, if one is a political official with a campaign staff and doesn't recognize how it might be perceived, well that say something else. :lol:
Thurston Romney III wins 5 out of 5 tonight.
Gingrich is still fighting, and apparently Santorum is persona non grata to Mittenton's campaign, they don't give a shit if he ever endorses him.
Oh, and the President did a pre-taped appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon; I just caught a glimpse of it--you're not going to want to miss this one.
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2012, 07:05:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 05:56:32 PM
I think it's fair to say they don't like Muslims. But if you want to think that over half the GOP are "confused ignoramuses", that's fine. I feel the same way. I suppose a fair question is why so many GOP opinion makers and politicians actively cultivate this confused state?
That's a cheap shot and misrepresentation of the truth on your part. It's also a reminder of why it's pointless to try & have a serious discussion with you.
Is there a better shot you would like? "Confused ignoramuses" was your phrase for over half of likely GOP voters who thought Mr. Obama is a Muslim.
This is a few weeks old but I don't think I have seen it here. If I am wrong too bad, here it is again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html?_r=2
QuoteA Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney
By DAVID JAVERBAUM
Published: March 31, 2012
THE recent remark by Mitt Romney's senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom that upon clinching the Republican nomination Mr. Romney could change his political views "like an Etch A Sketch" has already become notorious. The comment seemed all too apt, an apparent admission by a campaign insider of two widely held suspicions about Mitt Romney: that he is a) utterly devoid of any ideological convictions and b) filled with aluminum powder.
The imagery may have been unfortunate, but Mr. Fehrnstrom's impulse to analogize is understandable. Metaphors like these, inexact as they are, are the only way the layman can begin to grasp the strange phantom world that underpins the very fabric of not only the Romney campaign but also of Mitt Romney in general. For we have entered the age of quantum politics; and Mitt Romney is the first quantum politician.
A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate's position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals.
But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense. To be honest, even people like Mr. Fehrnstrom who are experts in Mitt Romney's reality, or "Romneality," seem bewildered by its implications; and any person who tells you he or she truly "understands" Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation.
Nevertheless, close and repeated study of his campaign in real-world situations has yielded a standard model that has proved eerily accurate in predicting Mitt Romney's behavior in debate after debate, speech after speech, awkward look-at-me-I'm-a-regular-guy moment after awkward look-at-me-I'm-a-regular-guy moment, and every other event in his face-time continuum.
The basic concepts behind this model are:
Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.
Probability. Mitt Romney's political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.
Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney's current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the "principle uncertainty principle."
Entanglement. It doesn't matter whether it's a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.
Noncausality. The Romney campaign often violates, and even reverses, the law of cause and effect. For example, ordinarily the cause of getting the most votes leads to the effect of being considered the most electable candidate. But in the case of Mitt Romney, the cause of being considered the most electable candidate actually produces the effect of getting the most votes.
Duality. Many conservatives believe the existence of Mitt Romney allows for the possibility of the spontaneous creation of an "anti-Romney" (Fig. 2) that leaps into existence and annihilates Mitt Romney. (However, the science behind this is somewhat suspect, as it is financed by Rick Santorum, for whom science itself is suspect.)
What does all this bode for the general election? By this point it won't surprise you to learn the answer is, "We don't know." Because according to the latest theories, the "Mitt Romney" who seems poised to be the Republican nominee is but one of countless Mitt Romneys, each occupying his own cosmos, each supporting a different platform, each being compared to a different beloved children's toy but all of them equally real, all of them equally valid and all of them running for president at the same time, in their own alternative Romnealities, somewhere in the vast Romniverse.
And all of them losing to Barack Obama.
David Javerbaum is the author of "The Last Testament: A Memoir by God."
:lmfao:
QuoteWhat does all this bode for the general election? By this point it won't surprise you to learn the answer is, "We don't know." Because according to the latest theories, the "Mitt Romney" who seems poised to be the Republican nominee is but one of countless Mitt Romneys, each occupying his own cosmos, each supporting a different platform, each being compared to a different beloved children's toy but all of them equally real, all of them equally valid and all of them running for president at the same time, in their own alternative Romnealities, somewhere in the vast Romniverse.
And all of them losing to Barack Obama.
Romnealities. The vast Romniverse. Love it.
That was amusing. And I don't hate Mitt Romney.
Neither do I. He's a good Democrat. :)
Quote from: sbr on April 24, 2012, 09:57:35 PM
This is a few weeks old but I don't think I have seen it here. If I am wrong too bad, here it is again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html?_r=2
QuoteA Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney
By DAVID JAVERBAUM
Published: March 31, 2012
(snip)
You left out the pictures:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F04%2F01%2Fsunday-review%2F01QUANTUM1%2F01QUANTUM1-articleInline.jpg&hash=7de97a885fc96b68dadaa5429deb1ce66cf9a4cf)
QuoteFig. 1: The famous "Schrödinger's candidate" scenario. For as long as Mitt Romney remains in this box, he is both a moderate and a conservative.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F04%2F01%2Fsunday-review%2F01QUANTUM2%2F01QUANTUM2-articleInline.jpg&hash=e28add5e88a8eb680ace64275802376ce9a0bd48)
QuoteFig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.
Gingrich is going to drop out! :o
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/gingrich-to-suspend-presidential-campaign-next-tuesday-sources-say/
Are there enough delegates outstanding for Ron Paul to pick up?
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2012, 06:29:27 AM
The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.
That's hilarious.
Btw isn't that Howard Dean in the Fig. 1 picture?
Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 10:01:54 AM
Btw isn't that Howard Dean in the Fig. 1 picture?
No. You can tell it's Mittens, he has a neck.
Somewhat relevant: so today was the Kentucky primary and I voted for Obama. :)
My only two choices were Obama and Uncommitted, and I'm not familiar with Uncommitted's experiences and platform so I went with Obama. I'm not 100% satisfied with Obama, but at least he's a known quantity to me. :cool:
That Uncommitted guy sounds very wishy-washy to me.
PREDICTION: He'll get 40% of the vote in Kentucky.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
PREDICTION: He'll get 40% of the vote in Kentucky.
Yeah, the fact that he hasn't been committed is going to kill his chances.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 03:35:19 PM
Somewhat relevant: so today was the Kentucky primary and I voted for Obama. :)
My only two choices were Obama and Uncommitted, and I'm not familiar with Uncommitted's experiences and platform so I went with Obama. I'm not 100% satisfied with Obama, but at least he's a known quantity to me. :cool:
Quite frankly, I would've lost money on that bet, Cooter.
:hmm: The bet that I would have voted for Mr. Uncommitted?
Like I said, not my favorite President ever, but certainly not so bad that I'd vote against him in favor of... nobody. :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 04:30:01 PM
:hmm: The bet that I would have voted for Mr. Uncommitted?
Like I said, not my favorite President ever, but certainly not so bad that I'd vote against him in favor of... nobody. :huh:
And where do you stand on Thurston Romney the 3rd and Hansy's "Blessed Are The Jobmakers" boys at Bain Capital?
DONT WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2012, 04:35:30 PM
And where do you stand on Thurston Romney the 3rd and Hansy's "Blessed Are The Jobmakers" boys at Bain Capital?
DONT WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION
Thurston Romney the 3rd is milktoast and the Bain Boys are vampire squids.
I'm kind of leaning toward Romney because he was nice to Princesca when she was President of the Wellesley College Republicans. :showoff:
I should take one of those online quizzes to see who I most closely align with between him and Obama.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 05:54:42 PM
President of the Wellesley College Republicans. :showoff:
:nerd:
Ok, I just took one that's still set up for the primaries. Predictably, I got an 88% match with Ron Paul. Second choice was Obama with an 85% match. Third was Mitt with a 53% match. Forth was Newtie with a 51% match. Last (and definitely least) was Santorum with a 47% match. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 22, 2012, 06:04:48 PM
:nerd:
Guess who else was President of the Wellesley College Republicans? :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 06:06:24 PM
Ok, I just took one that's still set up for the primaries. Predictably, I got an 88% match with Ron Paul. Second choice was Obama with an 85% match. Third was Mitt with a 53% match. Forth was Newtie with a 41% match. Last (and definitely least) was Santorum with a 47% match. :hmm:
:hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2012, 06:07:46 PM
:hmm:
'twas a typo, which I fixed before your post.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
PREDICTION: He'll get 40% of the vote in Kentucky.
President - Dem Primary
3166 of 3634 Precincts Reporting - 87%
Obama, Barack (i) Dem 104,082 58%
Uncommitted Dem 74,037 42%
:smarty:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_I3Q1kT0tz2A%2FRo5KD8b-X8I%2FAAAAAAAAAgc%2F18eRwMb4uwQ%2Fs400%2FHillaryC.jpg&hash=349099e729bad2a9985d6fc0e06dee9f67660da6)
Or, here's a contemporary photo from her Wellesley days:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Finstyle%2Fcelebrities%2Ftransformation%2F196-hillary-clinton-400.jpg&hash=68b7d50f207d3ba0ac306eb9874028544c197485)
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 06:06:24 PM
Ok, I just took one that's still set up for the primaries. Predictably, I got an 88% match with Ron Paul. Second choice was Obama with an 85% match. Third was Mitt with a 53% match. Forth was Newtie with a 51% match. Last (and definitely least) was Santorum with a 47% match. :hmm:
What kind of algorithm gives 3 point so of difference between Ron Paul and Barak Obama? :huh:
I dunno, the one on the random political quiz site that came up on Teh Google I guess.
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 08:13:19 PM
Or, here's a contemporary photo from her Wellesley days:
:perv:
No upsets in the two primaries last night. Obama's challenger, John Wolfe, in Arkansas took 42% of the vote, while "Uncommitted" took 42% of the vote in Kentucky; not much better than the 41% convicted felon Keith Judd won in the West Virginia primary two weeks ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76656.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2012, 08:13:19 PM
Or, here's a contemporary photo from her Wellesley days:
:perv:
Her pics from those days vary wildly in terms of hot or not... in some of them she looks like a hopeless nerd.
As I recall though she was solidly hot back when Bill was first running for Prez in the '92 campaign.
I always thought she looked fairly average. Not ugly, not pretty. I wouldn't have passed up a chance to go on a date with her. When she was in college. Not so much as an old woman.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 07:11:26 AM
I always thought she looked fairly average. Not ugly, not pretty. I wouldn't have passed up a chance to go on a date with her. When she was in college. Not so much as an old woman.
I'm not going to say a word, except...fugly
You're just afraid of her massive biceps.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2012, 07:33:18 AM
You're just afraid of her massive biceps.
No, a face that would scare the spots off a soccer ball.