| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [5510572522] Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 11:36
Have at it boys. A new sandbox. |
| 1 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 13:17
|
I read the new GOP platform Perm Dude and I do not see what is so offensive about it. In fact, if implemented, it will do a great deal of good. What did you find wrong about it?
|
|
| |
| 3 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 14:56
|
could you find a more biased summary?
|
|
| 4 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 15:17
|
Refute away.
|
|
| 5 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 15:34
|
Can't I don't have unbiased summary to compare it too. It could be 100% true or 100% false still totally unreliable. To me it is good as taking TLB's word that it is good.
|
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 15:35
|
TLB: How are they going to balance the budget by taking all military spending, Social Security and Medicare, and continuing to cut taxes? They don't say. They merely promise to do it without telling you how (Hint: They can't do it while holding themselves to the promises they made).
The problem isn't that it is offensive. It is that it is a feel-good document which cannot possibly translate into real-world policies. And virtually all areas of that document translate into an increase in the deficit.
This is like someone moving into a new area and promising to spend three hours a day volunteering, 10 hours a week working, 10 hours sleeping, 2 hours eating, 2 hours commuting...
It sounds good. Politics should be more than just sounding good, and it fails on its face.
|
|
| 7 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 15:47
|
Boikin -- ANY summary is going to inherently have the biases of the creator. Especially in a case like this where there aren't exactly a multitude of detailed presentations. Now, it's not SUPPOSED to be a detailed policy presentation, so I'm not going to go the route of say, John Boehner (forgive the source, first relevant Google hit and it makes the point) and just say "it's too short", but there's just no hard data at which one can objectively look at here.
I suspect the best course to arrive at an "unbiased" conclusion would be to look at a number of summaries from different perspectives and arrive at your own conclusions.
|
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 15:59
|
Conor Friedersdorf, writing from the Right, continues to help keep us focused, despite the nonsense spouting from GOP talking heads and politicians these days.
His summary paragraph:
Forced to choose, I’d rather live in the ACLU’s idea of the perfect America than a country where we repeal Obamacare, eliminate earmarks, and persist in chipping away at civil liberties to fight drugs and terrorists. The former may be a “road to serfdom.” The latter is a shortcut to the same place
|
|
| 9 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 16:53
|
PD, I'm not trying to bash Obama, but would it be a fair statement that Obama won the election because he sounded good? He a very gifted speaker and I think that quality helped him a great deal in the election. The other part was he wasn't Republican and didn't pick a religious nut as his running mate.
There have been some rumors that Mitch Daniels, Indiana's governor might make a run in 2012. I'm curious if others outside of Indiana are aware of him, or have thoughts on him.
|
|
| 10 | weykool
ID: 138481617 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 17:29
|
Democrats now trying to talk about balancing a budget it about as hypocritical as it gets. The only thing worse is when China, Iran and North Korea try lecturing the world on human rights.
|
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 17:35
|
Well, the last president to do so was a Democrat.
Frick: Obama won for a lot of reasons, IMO. Nearly everything head-to-head was in Obama's favor. And people were just tired of the end of the Bush Administration. Even Republicans were turning on him by the end.
|
|
| 12 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 17:38
|
GOP ( which this thread is about I believe) aren't the least bit interested in governing, and haven't made a genuine stab at since the 80s.
I don't really blame them. The folks who vote em into office prefer they destroy rather than create, so that's what they do.
|
|
| 13 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 18:01
|
Democrats now trying to talk about balancing a budget it about as hypocritical as it gets.
Weycool, you must have stopped paying attention to politics in 1978. The ONLY party that has made any effort at a balanced budget since then is the Democratic Party. Were you in a coma during the 90's? Backpacking through Europe?
|
|
| 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 18:02
|
FactChecking "The Pledge"
Seems to be a bit of a mutual dependence, bili. Toward Frick's question, the biggest reason that Obama got in office is that, previous to that, the GOP got everything it asked for. We are, in fact, less safe, more broke, more partisan, less trustworthy both internally and with our allies around the world, all as a result of the GOP running the table starting in 2000. They are much more interested in the manipulation intended to win elections and gain & hold power than in the responsibility of generating policy initiatives to the betterment of all once they get in.
|
|
| 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 21:12
|
Responding to Boikin's last post (#1797) in the previous thread.
In response to my request for sources and context for the alternate definitions of preventive war, you offered the following:hans J Morgenthau, politics among nations. AFK Organski, World Politics stephen Van Evera, The Causes of wars," Jack S. Levy, Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War. I appreciate the source listing upon request but it's usefulness it still pretty limited without the context, which I believe was also clearly requested. But I went with what you gave me and looked into Morganthau, finding that Politics Among Nations was a textbook with a first edition publishing in 1948. Initially I thought you might have pulled the definition from your own copy and that I might have to eat a little crow. But I poked around further and came across this paper; Studying Preventive War: Better Safe Than Sorry: Domestic and Systemic Factors of Preventive War, written by Steven T. Walker, "For presentation at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, 17-21 March 2004". This document appears to be your actual source. On page 6, he writes,"More recently, the theory of preventive war has been a topic of interest for Hans J. Morgenthau, Robert Gilpin, and A.F.K. Organski. Morgenthau describes preventive war as a necessary means of maintaining equilibrium in the international system. He then cites Morganthau (presumably from Politics Among Nations) in a sentence which looks basically the same - but dissimilar enough from the wording you offered to make this excerpt impossible to find via google:Since in a balance of power system all nations live in constant fear lest their rivals deprive them, at the first opportune moment, of their power position, all nations have a vital interest in anticipating such a development and doing unto the others what they do not want the others to do unto them….Preventive war, however abhorred in diplomatic language and abhorrent to democratic public opinion, is in fact a natural outgrowth of the balance of power. Boikin, a description is not a definition, but a depiction of some or all characteristics of a thing. For example, you might dispute my definition of a pine tree as a particular kind of plant. The fact that someone, even an expert, might describe a pine tree as 'green in color' does not mean the actual definition of 'pine tree' is more ambiguous than I argued, much less that it would be apropriate to describe a dollar bill as a pine tree.
If that bolded line above from Walker's paper was the base of your definition for preventive war; "A war that is used to maintain equilibrium in the system," you apparently failed to move on to the next page, where Walker offered his actual definition (as opposed to the description he attributes to Morganthau) of preventive war:Before moving on, it is essential to define what we mean by the term “preventive war.” While there is no universally accepted definition of preventive war, there are common elements in many definitions.
According to the DoD, preventive war can be defined as “A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.”15This element of inevitability is essential, and is found in many conceptualizations of preventive war. Also important in the DoD definition, in that it distinguishes preventive war from preemptive action, is the element of immediacy, or absence thereof. I'd like to think that more often than not I'll give a forum member the benefit of doubt of being lazy about not providing sources. But I must say, it actually looks here like you may have taken pains to obstruct me from locating your preventive war definition sources, especially if the rest are presented as far from intended context as you took Morgenthau and possibly Organski. Given the lack of information you've provided me and the amount of work I had to do to get this far, I haven't looked into the other two names or your other definitions, but I did find that two more Steven T. Walker papers come up when I put in the right search criteria including the names Stephen Van Evera and Jack S. Levy.
Of course maybe I've got it all wrong and Morgenthau's description being similar but not-close-enough to find by googling the "definition" you attribute to him both happen to be accurate. And that your omission of any links and requested context are just laziness, or maybe you really did pull that stuff from hard copies of works you have access to. And in any of those cases, I'd owe you an apology for suggesting that you might be disingenuously trying to pass of as truth what you surely know is false.
Regardless, if you didn't pull the Morgenthau quote from the linked Walker paper, or at least if you other sources are any more valid than what I've come up with so far, again, I'd appreciate it you'd share. I'm not accepting any more goose chases.
|
|
| 16 | weykool
ID: 138481617 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 21:58
|
SZ you can make all the derogatory comments you want but it doest change the facts. Anyone who really believes there was a balanced budget is smoking the good stuff. Like most things the government does they dont do things like real business including financial accounting. ITS A BUDGET....the government can make it balance every year if they want. Increase the estimate for revenues, decrease the estimate for expenditures, move 20% of the "budgeted amount" into other years and presto the budget is balanced.
The closest we came to anything resembling a balanced budget was after Reagan cut the tax rates and significantly increased tax revenues duing the 1990's. Add a Republican congress that put the brakes on Clinton's spending and we almost got there. Of course it didnt last because Clinton also deferred much of the spending as a poison pill to the the next president.
We have two kinds of spenders in Washington: the big spenders (GOP) the REALLY big spenders (Dems)
As for destroying anything....will there be anything left to destroy once Obama is done?
|
|
| 17 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 23:08
|
There might be 1 or 2 slightly disputable facts in #16.
|
|
| 18 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 00:02
|
Re: 16
I think that might be a bit of revisionism. I remember bond traders were looking at a future (and not that far away) where the government debt was going to disappear and take a huge part of their market with it.
|
|
| 19 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 00:11
|
Re: the "facts" in 10 and 16:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Sort by "Increase debt/GDP(in percentage points". There's exactly six presidential administrations which actually increased the debt as a percentage of GDP (which is a good measure of how long it'd actually take to pay it off) since World War II. Care to guess what they all have in common? I'll give you two hints: they're all shaded red on the table, and none of them are Democrats. The single highest increase happened with a Republican president and a Republican congress.
Average increase in federal spending, 1972-2005: Dem president = 9.9%, Rep president = 12.1%.
Average increase in federal DEBT, 1972-2005: Dem president = 4.2%, Rep president = 36.4%.
GDP increase, 1972-2005: Dem president = 12.6%, Rep president = 10.7%.
Spare me the pablum about "Republicans want to balance the budget -- except maybe for the really recent ones -- but really, they mean it." 65 years of consistent data means a lot more than empty words and emptier wallets.
|
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 00:21
|
The closest we came to anything resembling a balanced budget was after Reagan cut the tax rates and significantly increased tax revenues duing the 1990's
Before I really respond to this I'd like to ask if you really believe this, or is this satire? I'm honestly asking. If that is satire that's cool. Because the facts really aren't on your side otherwise.
Here's a Washington Post graph which demonstrates the budget deficit in bar graph form for some comparison:
You'll note that the largest deficit year, before Bush's, was Reagan's. And that's because revenues dropped when he lowered tax rates [the Laffer curve doesn't really work except in very extreme circumstances. And the Reagan experience demonstrated that. Once of his lasting legacies].
Here's a chart showing federal revenues relative to GDP (and accompanying spending).
The dirty secret of all of this is that Clinton balanced the budget not just because he cut the size of government (by a lot) but because he raised some taxes.
|
|
| 21 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 07:20
|
Frick: The fact that bond traders were duped like the rest of us into thinking the government was getting their financial house in order doesnt change the facts that it wasnt true.
PD really? Tax revenues in 1980 were about 500 billion. By the end of the decade they doubled to 1 trillion. The problem was that congress spent 6 dollars for every 5 taken in despite the massive increase in revenue. Now if you want to argue that revenues decreased as a % of GDP then all I have to say is DUH. The tax rate cuts were designed to grow the economy and they did exactly that. Perhaps you need to look into the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to see why they worked so well.
My initial post was referring to the irresponsible spending by the Obama administration and his lapdog congress over the past two years and the utter joke of Dems now voicing concerns over the deficit. Given that Congress approves all final budgets and initiates all spending bills perhaps you could find a graph that more accurately shows which party is most responsible for our current financial predicament?
|
|
| 22 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 14:08
|
|
|
| 23 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 17:16
|
it is mind-numbing in the face of the facts posted in 20, that there is any argument at all to be had.
i mean, other than the fact that Republicans are clearly the "Party of No" - as in "No matter what reality is, we'll say otherwise, and convince our constituents of that too..."
|
|
| 25 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 17:25
|
The utter joke, by the way, is not necessarily that people think the Dems will suddenly do a great job of balancing the budget (though given facts, they probably would; I'm not too convinced about the current congressional bunch) -- but that the Republicans claim that they would do better, given that every time they've tried, they've done appreciably worse.
|
|
| 26 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 17:34
|
Perhaps you need to look into the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to see why they worked so well.
I haven't looked at it but I don't think I have to in order to question your contention that it "worked so well". I don't see any spike in revenues in the mid 80s once you adjust for inflation. Does anyone else?
|
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 17:36
|
21: Well, if you are more interested in laying blame using general stereotypes about the party I suppose you'll need to answer for the 90's and what it did for the budget. If you believe the deficit to be a problem (I don't know if you do or not) then you'll need to square your support for the GOP to what they actually did when they held the House, Senate, and the White House and told the Dems that they need not bother to show up.
Nothing, of course, exists in a vacuum, and it is clear that Obama is taking on debt to keep the country from tanking. So while you excuse Reagan from taking on debt in order to "grow the economy" you should extend the courtesy, I think, to Obama as well.
|
|
| 28 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 18:13
|
They say figures don't lie but liars know how to figure. We first started talking about deficits and PD changes the subject to "deficits as a % of GDP". I then debunk his contention that revenues didnt increase during the 80's and MITH once again changes the subject to "revenues adjusted for inflation". Very slick guys. For the record...the TEFRA was passed in 1986 and according to the graph in #26 it would suggest to fully support the facts that the reduction of tax rates worked 100% as claimed. According to the graph it looks like revenues were just over 1 trillion in 1986 and ballooned to 2.5 trillion by 2000.
You Dems can focus all you want on the revenue side of the deficit but the real problem is the spending side. Americans are already taxed far too much in this country. If you want to pay more taxes be my guest....send your checks to the IRS to pay down the deficit. My guess is none of you Dems are willing to put your money where your rhetoric is.
|
|
| 29 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 18:31
|
I then debunk his contention that revenues didnt increase during the 80's and MITH once again changes the subject to "revenues adjusted for inflation".
Just so we're clear, you're saying revenues spiked after the TRA of 1986 - as long as you don't account for inflation?
|
|
| 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 18:38
|
I don't think anyone disagrees with you that spending must also be reigned in. But we've never been able to sustain balanced budgets with federal tax rates as low as they are today.
It was during the middle of the 20th century when the American economy was growing at leaps and bounds and when the US established itself as the predominant world economic power. Look at the federal tax rates in those years.
I'm sorry but it's just hard for me to believe that marginally bumping up the top rate a few percentage points to the high 30s will squash business growth when during our most prosperous period maybe only the bottom 1/4 of our tax brackets were that low.
|
|
| 31 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 18:40
|
Im just going by the graph that you posted which says it is based on inflation adjusted dollars and it is showing huge increases in revenues. The TRA of 1986 was phased in over 4 years so the benefits would have been realized mostly in the 90's.
|
|
| 33 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 18:54
|
I'm at a loss for just how applying real adjustments to figures somehow makes them less accurate.
For the record...the TEFRA was passed in 1986 and according to the graph in #26 it would suggest to fully support the facts that the reduction of tax rates worked 100% as claimed.
I think you need glasses. In the first place, that's inflation-adjusted revenue, home boy, which you maintain for some reason is a distortion?
Second, The way I see that graph, it looks to me like revenue continued on the same trajectory from 1983 to 1989, until it leveled off from that point until about 1993, when it started going up again. Three guesses as to what happened at that time (hint: the answer can be found in post 22).
|
|
| 34 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 19:12
|
Im not really sure what your argument is home boy. I have no idea as to the validity of the graph you posted. However, it 100% confirms my point that revenues increased after Reagan cut tax rates. The TRA of 1986 was responsible for sustained economic growth. With economic growth you would naturally expect inflation, but according to your graph it suggests that revenues did no worse than keeping up with inflation and more often than not increasing faster than inflation. Not my words...you words ... if your graph is correct.
|
|
| 35 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 19:42
|
However, it 100% confirms my point that revenues increased after Reagan cut tax rates
This is true in the sense that it is 100% true that my phone rang after several hours after I finished my coffee this morning. In other words, I'm having trouble with the correlation. Please let me elaborate:
Reagan lowered taxes in 1986 (actually he significantly raised taxes for the lower classes while drastically slashing them for the rich -- what a great guy). There is no discernable resulting change in real revenue growth in the 3 years that followed. Revenue went up around $100m or so per year, just as it had done in the three years previous to the tax cut.
You then said that they were phased in over 4 years, suggesting that the impact wouldn't be seen until 1990 or so. But look at the revenue line when it gets to 1989 - it levels off. Growth stopped right at the time that you claim the tax cuts were fully kicking in.
We don't see that line begin to rise again until 1993 when (you didn't even use one of your 3 guesses!) wait for it... when Clinton raised taxes.
I'm not demanding that there is necessarily a hard correlary, just that cutting taxes most certainly have not historically translated to higher tax revenues or GDP in real terms. And that for whatever reason, more often than not, the exact opposite does seem to be the case.
|
|
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 20:03
|
Also
I have no idea as to the validity of the graph you posted.
1. Both graphs include sources for their data.
2. It's hard to take seriously your challenge of sourced information as you neglect to provide any data (sourced or not) to support your claims in contrast.
|
|
| 37 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 22:02
|
"You Dems can focus all you want on the revenue side of the deficit but the real problem is the spending side."
Okay, so, explain why Republican presidents have increased spending at faster rates than Democratic presidents over the last 40 years, and why the fastest increase in spending occurred with a Republican president and a Republican Congress -- as I posted about 25 posts ago.
|
|
| 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 22:52
|
"homeboy?"
However, it 100% confirms my point that revenues increased after Reagan cut tax rates
Actually, it doesn't. Because it didn't happen. You seem very focused on "debunking" and calling people "liars" but you don't have the facts to back it up.
Seriously--you say that "revenues increased" after Reagan cut taxes. But no matter which way you look at it (nominal amounts, adjusted for inflation, or as a percentage of GDP) you are not correct in that assertion.
You also seem intent on tying economic recovery to an increase in government revenues (i.e., the government collected more money in taxes, and as a result the economy grew). As a conservative this is the very opposite of what you should believe. You really have to pick your points with care--they are not internally consistent.
|
|
| 39 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 01:16
|
As for "homeboy" you would need to ask poster #33 why he decided to make the comment. The rest of what you posted in #38 is complete garbage and a distortion of my position. I will make one attempt to see if I can educate you.
#1. Reagen NEVER cut taxes....he cut the tax rates that resulted in an increase in tax revenues. There is a significant difference and a very common mistake/misconception.
#2. The increase in tax revenues was not insignificant. 1.5 trillion in 1990 to 2.5 trillion in 2000 is not a small number. The TEFRA of 1986 was fully phased in in 1990. Keep in mind those numbers are inflation adjusted so the actual numbers are even more of an increase.
#3. Government revenues are are tied to economic expansion and recovery which is the conservative position. Grow the economy and you will see an increase in tax revenues.....not the other way around. Nice try in defining my position but we have to call it a fail.
#4. Using revenues as a % of GDP is a bogus and meaningless stat. The Reagan economic plan was designed to lower taxes as compared to the % of GDP. A simple example: Someone is making 100K and the government collects 50%. Reagan says if we reduce the tax rates to 30% and the taxpayer can double their income the net result will be 60K in revenue vs. 50K. Working as intended. To then go back and say it didn't work because the revenues as a % of GDP went down is a bogus distortion of the facts. Of course revenues as a % of GDP are going to go down when you cut tax rates.... that's the whole point. The only question that needs to be asked and answered is, did the total amount of revenues increase or not? During the 1990's the answer is absolutely and then some.
|
|
| 40 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 02:01
|
he cut the tax rates that resulted in an increase in tax revenues.
None of the data provided here supports this. As repeatedly noted, the rate of revenue increase did not improve until after Clinton raised taxes.
The only question that needs to be asked and answered is, did the total amount of revenues increase or not?
As displayed by the data provided, there was no positive change in revenue trends until after tax rates were increased for the highest earners.
And again you have provided no data to support your contentions, particularly any evidence to support that notion that 1986 rate cuts were the catalyst for post 1993 rate increase positive revenue trends.
|
|
| 41 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 09:17
|
Well, I have repeatedly pointed out that your position is simply not correct. You are certainly free to call things "fail" and what not, but, if true, you should be able to prove your single provable factual assertion with a link. Until then, I'll have to simply call your position about the tax revenues increasing a "fail" itself.
So: Prove it. Or not making the argument. Should be easy enough to do, yes?
Now, if you want to have the argument that Reagan saved the economy through tax cuts we can have that argument. There was a lot going on at the time, and my own opinion is that, by far, the largest single reason for the economic recovery at the time is the significant cut in federal interest rates, which freed up trillions of dollars for the credit markets. You might recall that the economic problems previous to 1980 were a slow economy combined with persistently high levels of inflation.
Reagan made a gutsy call, that taking on higher levels of debt (and yes, accompanying risk) during that economic downturn was the best way to grow the economy. And he was right. He wasn't right because he got more money for the government through a provably false application of the Laffer Curve.
|
|
| 42 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 09:26
|
Tax Policy Center
I'll let others comment on the bias of the cite, but from the data includes absolute and inflation adjusted amounts.
|
|
| |
| 44 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 09:57
|
Feelings
|
|
| 45 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 10:02
|
And one quick and obvious point...Reagan succeeded in quickly raising America from it's malaise by ending the Dem policy of treating business and the investor class as the enemy. Which policy included confiscating their money.
It's a lot easier facing the everyday risks a business faces when the bullets finally stop hitting you from behind.
|
|
| 46 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 16:17
|
It's awfully interesting how everyone saying "hey, you know, Reagan did X" are just sort of saying it and not presenting any data, while the people disagreeing with that point are presenting all sorts of data showing it's just not true.
It's all part of that elitism of caring about facts and figures and all that science-y type stuff, I guess.
It's also interesting how those people credit all the good parts in their minds to Reagan, while all the bad parts are credited to the Democrats in control of the House. I'm fairly certain that it doesn't work that way unless you're really in fairy-tale land.
|
|
| 47 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 17:50
|
Boehner: Americans aren't smart enough to hear our solutions:WALLACE: Congressman Boehner, as Willie Sutton said about banks, entitlements are where the money is. More than 40% of the budget. Yet, I’ve looked through this pledge and there is not one single proposal to cut social security, medicare, medicaid.
BOEHNER: Chris, we make it clear in there that we’re going to lay out a plan to work toward a balanced budget and deal with the entitlement crisis. Chris, it’s time for us as americans to have an adult conversation with each other about the serious challenges our country faces. And we can’t have that serious conversation until we lay out the size of the problem. Once Americans understand how big the problem is, then we can begin to talk about potential solutions. [...]
WALLACE: Forgive me, sir, isn’t the right time to have the adult conversation now before the election when you have this document? Why not make a single proposal to cut social security, medicare and medicaid?
BOEHNER: Chris, this is what happens here in washington. When you start down that path, you just invite all kind of problems. I know. I’ve been there. I think we need to do this in a more systemic way and have this conversation first. Let’s not get to the potential solutions. Let’s make sure americans understand how big the problem is. Then we can talk about possible solutions and then work ourselves into those solutions that are doable.
|
|
| 48 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 18:35
|
Oh, moms and grandmoms understand the size of the problem.
- Peggy Noonan
|
|
| 49 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 19:29
|
Saw that. Tell it to Republicans in Congress and get them to stop hiding their agenda from the voting public.
|
|
| 50 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 19:57
|
They tried but people like Murkowski and Crist still don't get it. Now Castle is polling to see if he should run independent.
Voters are in a mood to keep throwing them out until they find one who will stop spending, both parties be damned.
But I'm not sure how many significant major political parties there will be before the message gets thru. Because The Rove's and Pelosi's just don't get it.
|
|
| 51 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 20:00
|
They tried but...
I'm pretty sure Murkowski, Crist and Castle aren't the reason that no actual solutions made it into the "Pledge to America."
|
|
| 52 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 20:15
|
Why the media gotchas against O'donnell gain zero traction to the utter mystification of the media and the elites of both parties.
|
|
| 53 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 20:18
|
MITH#51
I'm pretty sure "stop digging" and "no more marxism" are in there somewhere.
|
|
| 54 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 20:23
|
I don't doubt it. But some Americans might be concerned with exactly what will be cut and what won't. Maybe you'll happily disregard these distinctions as irrelevencies, but I tend to think most Americans not inflicted with political rabies might care to know more.
It's awfully easy to just agree to sepnd less, but cuts always hurt someone and figuring out where to make them is the hard part of the job, which the so-called "Pledge" doesn't seem interested in bothering with.
|
|
| 55 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 20:56
|
But a NO vote on new spending works every time it is tried.
|
|
| 56 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 21:15
|
Gotcha. Skirt the issue and hold off the "adult conversation" until after the votes are cast.
Can't think of a better way to dupe the public with exactly the same agenda the GOP has been pushing for decades.
|
|
| 57 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 22:15
|
Except for the part where they weren't voting no. Way too often.
|
|
| 58 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 22:21
|
Starve Leviathan. There is an agenda the country is ready for.
When it's between us eating pork and beans or government workers let the SEIU and the AFT go scratch. In fact ban government employees from even forming unions and lobbying altogether. It's incestuous.
|
|
| 59 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 22:22
|
So, basically, it's "Really, you can believe us this time! Sure, the last dozen times we said this stuff it was BS, but you can trust us this time! Honest! Oh, and never mind that what we're proposing really kinda got us into this mess in the first place, that was like five years ago, things are different now!"
Cool story, bro.
|
|
| 60 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 22:28
|
58: I mean, it's an awesome theory, and I guess you can just vote Libertarian if you actually believe what you're saying. That'd at least be honest.
But saying Starve Leviathan! when you don't really mean it and never have is kinda what one refers to as a lie. Or campaign rhetoric, I guess. Least you could do is put one of those asterisks up there, like "Starve Leviathan*!!!!"
* = except for defense (because we own most of that stuff and blowing things up is cool), Medicaid, Social Security, and rich people's sixth yachts. But we'll cut back on everything else, because we believe that giving 95% of Americans a $50/year tax cut should make up for taking all our social services, education, and infrastructure, pooping on them, and lighting them on fire. Oh, and we need to spend a bunch more money on abstinence projects, can't forget that.
|
|
| 61 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 01:42
|
So where do we start, Baldy?
Your roads? Your schools? Your military bases? You hospitals? Your bridges?
If you have no need for the fruits of our societal cohesion and the great things that America has built and offers its citizens, go stumbling off into the Alaska wilderness and see you far you get.
|
|
| 62 | Boldwin
ID: 28857268 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 02:53
|
Really Bili? You wouldn't even accept flatlining the growth of government let alone actual cuts.
|
|
| 63 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 09:29
|
So where do we start, Baldy?
I can take this question.
Raise Social Security to 75 then means test it and give people the option to privatize. Tear up Obamacare and just put everyone on Medicare. Lift the wage restriction on Social Security taxes. Bring all of the troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, and Japan. Close half the army bases in this country. Upgrade our nuclear arsenal and make a missile shield that covers us and our allies. Cancel any military contract for some figher or system that's 8 generations ahead. Any real war that gets that serious will involve nukes anyway. Stop unemployment benefits at 1 year. That is long enough. Tie foreign aid to results. Outlaw lobbyists. Enprison any elected official that lies to the people by putting their promises under oath. Make cabinet officials elected posts. Outlaw the unelected czars. Eliminate capital gains taxes. Slash the corporate tax rate and tie it to performance based on the number of US jobs created.
Let us do those things first. Then let us see where we are.
|
|
| 64 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 09:33
|
Good list! I agree with about a third of these, but it is nice to see someone from the right actually propose policy ideas.
|
|
| 65 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 10:12
|
Can you cut up that list? Maybe we can compromise and a make a platform? :)
|
|
| 66 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 10:14
|
Agreed, PD. There are some items in Left Behind's list that make a lot of sense.
But some don't.
There are many jobs that people are physically unable to do until they're 75. I can start collecting in 3 years(at 62), but at a lower rate than if I wait another 4 years. We could probably save billions a year by moving the 62 to 64 or 65, and the higher pay rate up a couple years as well. Another problem with Social Security is the abuse of the disability provisions, as well as the billions collected by surviving spouses and dependents.
I personally know of a healthy 42 year old lady who gets a full boat SS monthly disability check for depression.
|
|
| 67 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 10:23
|
Republicans in congress should have called TLB. Their constituants migh. Then know what actual policies they are voting for, rather than a policy of promising to come up with some policies.
|
|
| 68 | walk
ID: 348442710 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 11:44
|
That list in #63 is good. I like many of them. I surely would like to get out of all of those wars, get away from lobbyists, and a few others. This guy should replace Boehner.
|
|
| 69 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 12:02
|
Argeed. When start deliniating actual cuts many can find common ground. You had me until nukes, and we are stil. Far far away from a shield, but means-testing ss is a good idea. Folks with a 100k pension and 5 mil in the bank shouldn't expect to suck on govt teet.
The problem is that neither the GOP or teabags will talk in anything other than incindiary generalities, because they have no interest in actual governance.
|
|
| 70 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 12:18
|
There's obviously some constitutional problems with outlawing lobbyists, not to mention the easy shortcut to fascism it creates.
But its really refreshing to hear a Republican voter support cuts in defense spending. Kudos, TLB. I sincerely doubt the authors of the "pledge" would consider it for a moment, much less resist the opportunity to attack any such proposal from the left as evidence that they don't "support the troops."
|
|
| 71 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 12:35
|
The problem is that neither the GOP or teabags will talk in anything other than incindiary generalities, because they have no interest in actual governance.
I think there are lots of Republicans that not only have an interest in actual governance, but are fully capable of doing a good job representing their constituencies.
The problem is that the GOP is currently controlled by demagogues like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity, who are entertainers and don't have to answer to a constituency. It's not in their interests to have the parties work together to solve the nation's problems, because they thrive on controversy and conflict, even if they have to manufacture it.
Consequently, many GOP candidates are finding that any type of moderate position or appearance of compromise with Democrats makes them a target for these entertainers who mask themselves as coherent political analysts.
|
|
| 72 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 13:10
|
Dood....
If you aren't an entertainer you are a rino.
True conservatives only worship clowns.
Reagan - b-movie actor Palin- beauty queen who couldn't hack it when asked to actually govern Rush, beck etc...- media clowns.
Who do true conservatives look up to who have shown any experience beyond hollowiing out or maligning government?
Anyone who has shown a propensity to govern
|
|
| 73 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 13:15
|
We just plain cannot afford the entitlement levels and other spending we are accustomed to. Some taxes need to go up, others need to go away to create jobs. It is just that simple.
But its really refreshing to hear a Republican voter support cuts in defense spending. Kudos, TLB.
Thank you. Look up Ron Paul. I do not know the minutae of it but his foreign policy appears to be solid from a high altitude.
|
|
| 74 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 13:29
|
Too bad his son isn't as principled as the dad is.
|
|
| 75 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 15:56
|
I'm not familiar with Paul's foreign policy but I'd imagine he's probably a bit too non-interventionist for my taste.
But more to the point I dont know of any Republican voters who support Paul on that. Until now I guess. Am I right to assume you consider yourself a libertarian?
Maybe you know that Paul and Barney Frank have sent a letter to Obama's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform requesting that their debt reduction proposal include defense cuts. Do you know whether any Republicans in the commission (or any Congressional Republicans, for that matter) have signed on or indicated that they are open to the idea? Paul Ryan, maybe? It would be a nice bargaining chip for GOP legislators if I didn't believe it's an automatic dealbreaker for about 99.5% of them.
|
|
| 76 | walk
ID: 348442710 Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 16:20
|
I think Ron's foreign policy is very black & white though. I don't think he'd help out any allies unless we were invaded on our turf. I am going from his debates back 2009, but he's a strict Libertarian.
To balance the budget, we do have to raise taxes and cut spending...military spending could save us a lot of money...I don't think the republicans want to do there though (military industrialized complex rules all, including Dems). A sham(e). My taxes would increase in the Bush tax cuts were repealed. I would take this hit.
|
|
| 77 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 17:34
|
Pres. Obama vs. Sarah Palin in 2012?
Obama's best hope of winning a second term just may be Alaska's dropout governor, Palin. If the election were held today, voters say, they would back the president over Palin by a 9-point margin.
Support for Palin is weak in the Midwest and the Northeast ... and almost 60 percent of voters say her actions since since resigning as governor have made them less likely to vote for her for president.
Female voters are especially negative about Palin. Fifty-four percent have an unfavorable view of her. No other Republicans tested in this poll had such high negatives among women.
|
|
| 78 | Boldwin
ID: 408352818 Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 19:35
|
The light isn't on either.
|
|
| 79 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 00:24
|
The light isn't on either
it comes as no surprise that you'll offer up some random snarky comment, instead of commenting on something such as post #63.
i'm sure i'm not the only here who is curious as to your opinions on the proposals in that post.
|
|
| |
| 81 | Boldwin
ID: 46834294 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 05:55
|
Limiting spending to enumerated powers for example.
|
|
| 82 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 09:09
|
I'm not familiar with Paul's foreign policy but I'd imagine he's probably a bit too non-interventionist for my taste.
What is your taste and how is it different from your perception of Ron Paul's foreign policy?
But more to the point I dont know of any Republican voters who support Paul on that. Until now I guess. Am I right to assume you consider yourself a libertarian?
Pretty much we should invade countries that attack us. Lock up the southern border and leave countries like Germany and Japan that have quieted down I would say.
|
|
| 83 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 10:47
|
What is your taste
A few opinions, off the cuff:
Stand in loyal defense of our allies unless they unnecessarily provoke confrontation.
Foreign aid is humanitarian and helps our moral standing in the world.
Do not water down the promise of NATO with the inclusion of nations we aren't prepared to defend.
Diplomatic lip service doesn't fool anyone.
The UN is not an effective deterrant of aggression but it allows the grievences of small nations to be heard and can be useful in disaster relief and other humanitarian endeavors. I oppose any UN program which challenges our own sovereignty.
Preemption must be a convincing case, and must follow any earnest diplomatic attempts possible. Prevention is always inexcusable.
how is it different from your perception of Ron Paul's foreign policy
Rather than rely on my perception, I looked into his positions a little bit, and like I thought, too non-interventionist for me.
Paul doesn't seem very interested in alliances which could draw us into wars. In my opinion, carefully chosen alliances improve national defense.
Paul opposes federal foreign aid.
Paul wants to pull out of NATO.
I respect Paul. He's a rare elected pol who honestly doesn't seem bought and sold by anyone. But I'm not a libertarian. I believe the US should be involved in world politics. Paul wants to keep as much distance as possible, even, apparently, if it might mean standing on the sidelines while our allies fight.
I do agree with him in some foreign policy areas. He's not as blindly pro-Israel-no-matter-what as the American political right seems to demand of it's members, which is refreshing.
But outside of foreign policy, my worldview overlaps occassionally with the libertarians but not often enough to support their politics.
I should note that Paul's non-interventionist ideology has him firmly opposed to any preventive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
|
|
| 84 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 13:07
|
Paul has the closest foreign policy that matches my personal beliefs. I am not confident he would get my vote in a general election or primary. To me personally our foreign policy is backwards. We have secured the whole of Europe, but cannot do the same thing to our southern border. Our foreign policies have caused us massive problems and quite honestly we have to give the world an ultimatum. If emerging countries like China, India and Brazil will join us militarily every time there is a problem then we do too. Otherwise we assume all of the risk without really any reward.
Do not water down the promise of NATO with the inclusion of nations we aren't prepared to defend.
NATO is a paper alliance. Do you think that alliance really even exists? We must be insane jockeying for Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. The UN is not an effective anything except for an effective waste.
I should note that Paul's non-interventionist ideology has him firmly opposed to any preventive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The Stuxnet Worm seems to be taking care of that problem.
|
|
| 85 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 13:38
|
Legalize the Constitution.
not answering the question.
what do you feel about the specific proposals brought forth in #63?
|
|
| 86 | Boldwin
ID: 50892914 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 15:55
|
I would replace his with the principles...
1) Stop digging. No new government spending and hiring. No hiring to replace departing government workers. Shrink government spending to Reagan era levels wherever possible. Freeze public sector retirement plan growth. Eliminate public sector unions.
2) Privatization option for SS. Attack the army of lawyers and laws sabotaging medicine. Repeal Obamacare obviously.
3) Stop attacking job producers.
4) Stop borrowing from China to enrich corrupt government workers and leaders in other countries. [end foreign aid]
5) Constrain executive orders and czars so that they can no longer endrun the constitution.
6) Subject the EPA and all other pernicious agencies to adult supervision.
7) Stop favoring big corporate farming. [End Ag subsidies]
8) Audit the efficiency of government programs and sunset then ruthlessly where warranted as well as automatically every ten years.
9) Recoup all unspent stimulus money. 10) Repeal virtually any program with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's fingerprints on them.
11) Cut every temporary program that has been granted immortality thru congressional inertia and institutional self-preservation.
12) Ban lobbyists from writing segments of law code.
13) Get the tax code down to 20 pages. Stop selling tax loopholes for campaign funds.
14) Jail any politician who promises government job creation in the private sector [a myth] or who promises more jobs while attacking job producers. [like an arsonist promising more living space]
15) Stop distorting market signals.
16) Stop spending and legislating to enact international laws and standards, UN social engineering treaties.
17) Make every law specify where it's funding would come from, what would be cut in government to pay for it.
I could go on all day. That's just shooting from the hip.
Of course the trolls aren't interested in good ideas. They just want to convert stuff like a private option retirement plan into scare stories for granny.
|
|
| 87 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 01:33
|
Of course the trolls aren't interested in good ideas.
actually, the problem is that it's not even worth attempting to have a sensible discussion with someone who labels you a troll before even having a conversation on the topic.
not that you actually answered the question posed to you, but sorry i asked. i should have known better.
|
|
| 88 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 09:05
|
Re: 86
There are some ides listed above that I could support, but the wording of them is inflamatory.
A friend of mine had a simple suggestion that I love, but know will never happen. Bills in Congress are only allowed to contain one issue. No more riders or multiple issues in one bill. The way it is currently bills have so many issues inside that either side can bash the other for blocking something. For example, the military budget shouldn't contain the issue removing don't ask don't tell. Make our representatives vote on each issue separately and place transparency on how our representatives are voting.
|
|
| 89 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 09:13
|
Good stuff in this thread. I think I am more aligned with MITH and left behind, and would vote for that ticket next election...or ask you guys to be in Obama's cabinet.
As MITH said, Paul is too isolationist. I also respect Paul's honest and the fact that he is seemingly not beholden. He was downright laughed out during the republican debates by his colleagues, which was so insulting -- when they were all asked one at a time what they would do in Iraq, and all said surge, while he said get out now, it's against the constitution. I think Paul would only use the military if our land was attacked, and is social views are too conservative for my beliefs.
Tree, Baldwin, I know you guys can post without being compelled to always criticize each other, even in your posts that include your ideas, but I guess it's more fun that way. It seems almost obligatory.
March for sanity.
|
|
| 90 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 11:04
|
I think Paul would only use the military if our land was attacked, and is social views are too conservative for my beliefs.
that is bit surprising, ill admit I am not familiar with his social views but generally speaking libertarians they are usually fairly socially liberal.
|
|
| 91 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 11:21
|
Paul, IIRC, is stridently anti-choice, and being a strict constitutionalist, not in favor of things like gay marriage.
|
|
| 92 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 11:34
|
Actually walk I believe he's aganst government sanctioned marriage all together, which is a position I've long supported here.
|
|
| 93 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 11:53
|
Thanks for the clarification. So, I disagree with the both of you on that one. I want it fair and equal, however it's implemented.
|
|
| 94 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 12:25
|
he's aganst government sanctioned marriage all together
that sounds about as fair and equal as it gets.
|
|
| 95 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 12:43
|
Well, that all sounds fine, but gays aren't altogether interested in having their marriage "sanctioned" by the government. They are interested in having the government recognize their marriages as legal, so that the legal benefits that flow to married couples include gays in such committed relationships.
This might sound like a very tiny point, but it is the crux of the problem. There are a myriad of benefits that married couples receive that unmarrieds do not--not all of them direct government benefits. The ability to stay with your partner in the hospital, for example, is almost automatic for married couples but involves an approval process by a hospital for others.
Marriages don't become marriages because the government says they are. Marriages exist and then are recognized by the states (or not, in the case of most gays).
|
|
| 96 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 12:51
|
Thank you for much more eloquently stating the issue, PD. Exactly. Paul's principles about changing the constitution with an amendment trump the legal equality issues that has evolved since the const was first written.
|
|
| 97 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 12:56
|
Bills in Congress are only allowed to contain one issue. No more riders or multiple issues in one bill.
Good one Frick. The line item veto would limit that but this assumes we can trust the President to use it. I would rather have this the way you suggested.
The country really has to have a Come To Jesus meeting about things or we will turn into some backwater.
|
|
| 98 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:02
|
The position of many gays and libertarians is that government get out of the marriage business and simply allow couples to file for civil unions that work the same way for everyone. If you want to also get married in a church or temple or in a backwoods outhouse for that matter, more power to you - but it's an entirely non-legal thing, with all the legally binding stuff in the entirely non-religious civil union. I can't think of a reason for why the current system is any better.
|
|
| 99 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:07
|
As long as everyone gets the same benefits and recognition....and god is left out of it.
|
|
| 100 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:07
|
The wrangling is all about achieving a perceived majority approval of homosexuality. It is not about legalistic details.
|
|
| 101 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:21
|
I agree with Boldwin. The gay movement seems to be more about broader social acceptance of homosexuality than about them getting their benefits. Lately it seems as if every television show has a homosexual. It appears that the media is assisting with the push to have gays accepted into mainstream society.
|
|
| 102 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:30
|
#110: I see that as an okay, and appropriate, by-product of the marriage equality thing. Equal marital rights is the legal issue, and increased social acceptance would be nice, and that's up to each individual in society. I am sure you don't count the # of heterosexuals who are on TV talk shows and whatnot.
|
|
| 103 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:35
|
Why do you care if they are on television? They are in real life, too.
Battling bigotry and winning rights go hand-in-hand, but you're correct, they are not exactly the same.
|
|
| 104 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:36
|
I am sure you don't count the # of heterosexuals who are on TV talk shows and whatnot.
The media would have us think that everyone has a gay son or uncle. Not everyone identifies or wants to identify or accept gays. I have acknowledged their right to exist and to have rights but I do not want their culture in our face. They are so far outside the mainstream and in a minority that the attention put upon them is far above what it deserves to be. You might as well have every show on television with a satanist or volcano worshipper if we have to display every single aspect of society.
|
|
| 105 | Farn @ work
ID: 50917112 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:44
|
TLB - are you saying there are as many volcano worshippers as there are gays? Seriously?
I'm not sure where you live but I live in a large metropolis where there are plenty of homosexuals. Maybe in the backwoods areas of America they aren't there (btw, if you believe that you are crazy) but in heavily populated areas there are.
|
|
| 106 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:44
|
The focus is put on them for the same reason focus was put on the minority blacks in the 60s: Their rights are being abused by the majority.
No one (least of all gays) want you to want "their culture" (whatever that is). They want to be left alone, with the rights everyone else enjoys.
They want the right to marry. Surely this is not "far outside the mainstream" -- that is, in fact, the mainstream. The efforts by many gays to live a mainstream live is at issue here. They are tired of being ghettoized, frankly.
|
|
| 107 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:45
|
Word. PD on the mark. You should run for mayor somewhere.
|
|
| 108 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 14:48
|
Well, that all sounds fine, but gays aren't altogether interested in having their marriage "sanctioned" by the government. They are interested in having the government recognize their marriages as legal, so that the legal benefits that flow to married couples include gays in such committed relationships.
back to the orginal topic, sorta, i personally think there should not be any special legal benefits to any type of "marriage". If you want legal document form a partnership.
|
|
| 109 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:04
|
The thing about marriage is that it conveys a host of benefits that a partnership does not. There are all sorts of assumptions about marriages that are not made with other partnerships.
You can transfer property to a spouse, for instance, without paying taxes on it. You can't do that in a partnership.
Like it or not, marriage recognition is here to stay because it is deeply rooted in how we interact (mostly, because the government recognizes that married people are, by and large, a more stable group and that is a good thing for communities).
Meanwhile, acceptance of gay marriage is about even with rejection of it. And acceptance is picking up over time. The age difference in these polls is striking (and reminds me of civil rights polling in the 60s in which the younger Americans were far more accepting of rights for blacks than the older folks).
|
|
| 110 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:06
|
The lengths you will go to in making the phony comparison between gays and blacks.
|
|
| 111 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:13
|
I have acknowledged their right to exist...
how generous and loving of you.
They are so far outside the mainstream
such as the mayor of houston, or Jodie Foster, or David Sedaris, or various heads of corporations, and so forth? they're outside the mainstream?
and in a minority that the attention put upon them is far above what it deserves to be.
so, being in the minority means someone isn't worthy? such as my religion? or Baldwin's religion - heck, percentage of population-wise, there are many, many, many more homosexuals than there those of Baldwin's religion, or even my religion. and probably our religions combined.
guess we're not worthy.
|
|
| 112 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:16
|
You can happily sign me on to the "get government out of marriage" contract.
From a legalistic perspective, is it not religious discrimination to sanction marriages based solely on a church's sanctioning of that marriage, and then not sanction other marriages despite a church's sanctioning of that marriage?
It's easy to have a "bundle of rights" contract which gives two consenting adults that bundle of rights which we normally confer in the law by "marriage" -- and if you want to you can go ahead and say "limit one agreement per customer", fine with me, though the strictly legal thing to do is probably "limit 1 per customer, unless all parties agree".
TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THAT, your church can sanction or not sanction whatever the heck it wants to and I could really care less.
|
|
| 113 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:19
|
Gay activist groups won't accept that deal. They will not stop at civil unions with similar legal treatment with marriage. They insist having the government stamp of approval on homosexuality and to use that to stamp out morality.
|
|
| 114 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:22
|
They insist having the government stamp of approval on homosexuality and to use that to stamp out morality.
I saw the old term "balderdash" recently used. Probably would fit right about here.
|
|
| 115 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:26
|
#104, I disagree with the perception that the gay culture is in your/our face...I would say when you see it, you are more sensitive to it. Of course, in order to get equal rights, minority groups have to ask for them, and I don't know how they would get their message across without some media attention. So, maybe if we gave all minorities = rights, and there was greater social acceptance and less homophobia, you'd not get their culture thrown in your face...You should take up the cause, bro -- win/win.
|
|
| 116 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:26
|
heh.
The far right continue to insist this is about male anal sex instead of simple respect for the rights of others. Meanwhile, their fears are being exposed for what it is: sexual squeemishness with a dash of old timey religion to give it a sheen of "respectability." And they are losing:
The bonus of that graph, of course, is what it looks like.
|
|
| 117 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:33
|
#113, messed up. Stamp out morality. I'd argue that sentiment itself is immoral. Accept everyone, as long as they don't hurt someone else. That's moral. Equal rights.
Humans are complicated. We have evolved such that homosexuality is as real and intimate as heterosexuality. The only diff is procreation, and some bogus god-laden rule that marriage must have procreation possibilities, or more likely, not gross out someone who cannot handle homosexuality. That lack of acceptance is immoral.
Pols on all sides who vote against gay marriage are cowtowing to a homophobic populace...and it's funny that for some of these pols and preachers and whatnot, they are homosexual themselves.
Accept.
|
|
| 118 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:38
|
I disagree with the perception that the gay culture is in your/our face...I would say when you see it, you are more sensitive to it. - Walk
Hollywood can't make a sitcom or a movie without a prominant sympathetic gay tag-a-long character. Admit something as obvious as that.
|
|
| 119 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:43
|
Try watching the movie 'Fifth Element' and tell me obligatory gay characters aren't 'in our face'.
|
|
| 120 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:48
|
Boldwin. Fine. Whatever, although I will say there are exceptions, but whatever. Do you think gays are disproportionately represented in sitcoms compared to "the real world?" I doubt it, but I live in NYC and before that SF, so my view is skewed.
I watch a lot of sitcoms, and see a ton of flicks, and the gay theme is often a satire of homophobia:
30 Rock, The Office, Hot Tub Time Machine, I Love you MAN, South Park, even macho shows like Rescue Me and Entourage, and other sitcoms like Louie, Children's Hospital, Californication, Weeds, Bored to Death, focus soooo much more on male sexual exploits, and when they throw in the "ooooooooo, he's gay and going to touch me" thing, you bug...just like they want!
|
|
| 121 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:54
|
Walk#117
If you believe replacing God's morality with satan's version is moral, then of course you would say that.
Flop around in that short-lived bizzaro world or save yourself.
|
|
| 122 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:58
|
There is no god, there is no satan...It's in your head, and you have a right to believe that. However, your religion should not dictate others' rights. I knew it was a god thing, knew it. Religulous!
|
|
| 123 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:17
|
It just now dawns on you that morality is a 'God thing'? lol
|
|
| 124 | Canadian Hack
ID: 457241711 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:24
|
I am really happy Baldwin believes in god, because if he didn't he'd be running around naked having sex with sheep and firing machine guns randomly at people.
The rest of us don't require a ridiculous make believe reason to be moral, but if Baldwin does, I am really happy that make believe reason does exist in his head.
|
|
| 125 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:26
|
It's not, for those who have the ability to think for themselves.
Admittedly, the group appears to be small.
|
|
| 126 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:26
|
Neither you or I are qualified to set the standards of universal morality, grasshopper.
|
|
| 127 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:47
|
Try watching the movie 'Fifth Element' and tell me obligatory gay characters aren't 'in our face'.
it always cracks me up when you pull out some random thing from 15 years ago as proof of something much larger.
OMG. run to the hills! a sci fi movie had a gay character who was a stereotype!
|
|
| 128 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:19
|
#126, yes we are. I believe in the power and dignity of the human spirit and mind. Maybe you don't have that comfort and confidence to determine and judge right and wrong, and you need to take your morality orders from a god. To each her own, but your god's morality should not drive my country's laws, which is something I have to grapple with, because to a considerable extent, it already does.
I wonder how a gay person would feel about this sentiment that gay culture is in your faces...How about the heterosexual culture being thrown about in their faces? Think that's valid?
|
|
| 129 | chode
ID: 4744089 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:29
|
#124 - Wait, now God is "a ridiculous make believe reason to be moral"? That's a little much. If you think you're championing equality by taking that tact, think again.
|
|
| 130 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:33
|
To each her own, but your god's morality should not drive my country's laws, which is something I have to grapple with, because to a considerable extent, it already does.
but what makes your morality so superior over boldwins that your morality has to drive my country's laws? why should any ones morality drive the country's laws? You talk like some how morality is like a math problem and there is a right and wrong answer. there isn't and hypothetically speaking if there is then there is just as much probability that boldwin is right about morality as you are.
|
|
| 131 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:37
|
I have to agree with him, chode. For atheists, god is a make believe thing. I believe morality comes from a different place. In terms of equality, I think the point is that one's use of god to insubstantiate homosexuality and inequality is not fair, because we all don't believe in (that) god.
|
|
| 132 | chode
ID: 4744089 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:52
|
#131 - Maybe so, to you ("I believe morality comes from a different place"), and that's fine. But that's not what the post said. It says Boldwin's (and by extension, Christians' ... or for that matter anyone who believes in God, apparently) belief in God is "make believe" which is a far, far broader statement that results in the complete opposite of (what I thought was) the upshot of this discussion - such as equality, tolerance and the like.
|
|
| 133 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 18:41
|
Gay activist groups won't accept that deal
last time boldy tried that line I promptly countered with examples of gay organizations taking exactly that stance.
|
|
| 134 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 18:51
|
FTR I don't think Chris Tuckers character in The Fifth Element was gay. He was a celebrity who made women weak in their knees and in one scene cut a quick tryst (with a woman) short to go live on the air. The character was highly flamboyant and seemed to be presented as gay, but then his actions countered that. The character who was presented as the big action hero of the day wore a white wig that I thought looked like a Victorian style buffant. But he was surrounded by and canoodling women every scene he was in.
|
|
| 135 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 19:11
|
That's right, MITH! That was one silly sci-fi flick, fer sure. Plus, there's the concept of choice. I will not buy for one minute the presumption that folks who cannot tolerate gay characters have no alternatives. It's the opposite, and until one is a minority, they really ought to think twice about claiming they are overwhelmed with minority viewpoints or characterizations.
|
|
| 136 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 12:57
|
Of course, in order to get equal rights, minority groups have to ask for them, and I don't know how they would get their message across without some media attention.
Every white person in America should thank God on the day they become the minority. All the scholarships, minority leaning government contracts, media sympathy, and affirmative action job quotas will go our way.
|
|
| 137 | walk
ID: 517172117 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:02
|
Not. (1) Whites will only become a minority compared to all other ethnicities combined; (2) Whites were not historically discriminated against in our country.
Affirmative action is about proportional representation and overcoming discrimination, both overt and unintentional (disparate/adverse impact and treatment, technically speaking). The issue of differential cut scores on tests is where things get hairy, and require a lot of data about past employment practices, fairness in hiring decisions etc.
That said, I don't think Whites can make a case, like heterosexuals, that they have faced years and years of bigotry and discrimination and deserve some kind of compensation.
|
|
| 138 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:16
|
affirmative action job quotas will go our way.
I just KNEW you were white!
Your attempts at humor might land you a gig opening an actuary convention, but I find them rather meek.
|
|
| 139 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:19
|
Minority status in that sense isn't just a population tally. It's about vulnerability and being taken advantage of. When you control the wealth and the politics, you're rarely as vulnerable as those who don't, even if their numbers are greater.
|
|
| 140 | Boldwin
ID: 4693818 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:49
|
LB
Somehow christianity isn't part of the great diverse tapestry either.
|
|
| 141 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 14:07
|
Sure it is. The problem is with those who want it to be the entire tapestry.
|
|
| 142 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 14:27
|
Come on, dwetzel. You know a Christian could never be elected president.
|
|
| 143 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 14:33
|
Well, OK, you caught me there. Though, I mean, it's possible, nobody's ever tried before.
|
|
| 144 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 14:48
|
You know a Christian could never be elected president.
they probably can't hold hands in public either, without fear of being assaulted.
|
|
| 145 | Boldwin
ID: 17956115 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 17:01
|
You all know plain as day that every crazy evil culture under the sun is lovingly sewn on the peace quilt and respect demanded of it/speech codes applied to it while christianity is ripped on relentlessly.
|
|
| 146 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 17:39
|
Sigh?
If we're making sure all the "crazy/evil" cultures are off the peace quilt, just don't complain when you aren't on it wither. You don't get the "But my crazy/evilness is OK because mine is the One True God" pass if they don't.
|
|
| 147 | Boldwin
ID: 17956115 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 17:56
|
I have a dream date for you with Idi Amin. Present yourself in Paris.
|
|
| 148 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 17:59
|
This pre-dates you arrival, Dwetz, but there is a "no sighing" rule, it was our first.
Don't let one slip again... :)
|
|
| 149 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 18:01
|
"This pre-dates you arrival, Dwetz, but there is a "no sighing" rule, it was our first.
Don't let one slip again... :)"
I know, but I really, really, really wanted to. Just this once. I could have just posted the O Rly? Owl with equal effect, I suppose.
|
|
| |
| 151 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Oct 02, 2010, 01:03
|
You all know plain as day that every crazy evil culture under the sun is lovingly sewn on the peace quilt and respect demanded of it/speech codes applied to it while christianity is ripped on relentlessly.
a positively silly statement.
when Christianity gets ripped on, it's usually because some Christian is screaming "poor me! poor me! i'm being oppressed!"
|
|
| 152 | walk
ID: 517172117 Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 12:54
|
NYT: Frank Rich: O'Donnell Decoy
From what we do know, it’s clear that some Tea Party groups and candidates like Sharron Angle, Paul and O’Donnell are being financed directly or indirectly not just by the Kochs (who share the No. 5 spot on the new Forbes 400) but by a remarkable coterie of fellow billionaires, led by oil barons like Robert Rowling (Forbes No. 69) and Trevor Rees-Jones (No. 110). Even their largess may be dwarfed by Rupert Murdoch (No. 38) and his News Corporation, whose known cash contributions ($2 million to Republican and Republican-tilting campaign groups) are dwarfed by the avalanche of free promotion they provide Tea Party causes and personalities daily at Fox and The Wall Street Journal.
However much these corporate contributors may share the Tea Party minions’ antipathy toward President Obama, their economic interests hardly overlap. The rank and file Tea Partiers say they oppose government spending and deficits. The billionaires have no problem with federal spending as long as the pork is corporate pork. They, like most Republican leaders in 2008, supported the Bush administration’s Wall Street bailout. They also don’t mind deficits as long as they get their outsize cut of the red ink — $3.8 trillion worth if all the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
|
|
| 153 | Boldwin
ID: 43952322 Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 04:58
|
They also don’t mind deficits as long as they get their outsize cut of the red ink
The deranged view of liberals on taxes and economy on display. Red ink, black ink...it's all good. Not being punitively bled is 'getting a cut' as in getting a cut of the loot. Indeed taxes are our blood until it becomes their stolen loot.
|
|
| 154 | walk
ID: 517172117 Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 09:11
|
NYT: Krugman, Repulicans, Fox, Tea Party
This one could go in one of three threads, but I plopped it here. Kinda known, still a bit creepy, and another view about how the tea party really is not quite as independent as some would claim.
|
|
| 155 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 10:45
|
Well it looks likes the left is as paranoid as the right.
|
|
| 156 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 10:48
|
I think the left has a long way to go to match the paranoia on the Right these days.
|
|
| 157 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 10:53
|
mabye, but as a political strategy I have to give them props, they probably should have started sooner.
|
|
| 158 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 12:11
|
There's been a lot of pressure from the progressive wing to stick it to the Republicans by employing the exact same tactics as the far right did during, say 2004 onward. If Clinton had gotten the nod in the last election instead of Obama, you'd have seen no end to the left-wing invective.
|
|
| |
| 160 | Boldwin
ID: 1293423 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 11:33
|
I am baffled as to how a case of government workers being their normal DMV selves is a Tea Party story.
|
|
| 161 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 11:48
|
I think the obvious anti-government ideal at work is hardline approach of witholding services unpaid for. The mayor defended the policy specifically by saying they apply the rules the same way that a business would, likening the fee to auto insurance.
|
|
| 162 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 12:25
|
The mayor defended the policy specifically by saying they apply the rules the same way that a business would, likening the fee to auto insurance.
clearly the mayor does not work in business or he would know that you save their house then you bill them for it.
|
|
| 163 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 12:30
|
Daniel Foster at National Review supports the policy, acknowledging trouble with the FD still refusing to help after the homeowner offered to pay, whatever the cost of saving whatever they could of his house, agreeing with a reader comment who suggests that homeowners not in compliance with the fee sign a premade contract to pay before the firefighters turn on the hoses. He also nods to NR colleague Kevin Williamson, who stands in agreement with how the policy was applied, arguing that giving homeowners that kind of break undermines the moral hazzard incentive to pay the fee.
|
|
| 164 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 12:41
|
My understanding was that the FD only went to the scene when a neighbor called to say that the fire had spread beyond the first house. I don't know that they would have been able to save the house anyway.
|
|
| 165 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 12:50
|
If I were a Dem strategist I'd pounce on this political gift as the end result of tea party ideals. And I'd donate a chunk of campaign cash to the family (or openly raise the funds quickly if a donation from campaign coffers breaks the rules).
|
|
| 166 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 13:00
|
It's a libertarian dream.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party (including Joe the Plumber) has rallied against puppy mill legislation of all things, claiming that requiring puppy mills to provide basic food, shelter, vet care and so on will raise the cost of puppies so much, "making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners."
I hadn't realized there was a puppy deficit in the middle class. I guess all the time I spent re-reading my marxists tracts has caused some things to pass me by.
|
|
| 167 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 13:23
|
2008 proposal to fund transitioning the 8 municipal fire departments into a single county-wide fie department On January 19, 1987, the Obion County Commission passed a resolution establishing an Obion County Fire Department, but no action was taken to implement the resolution. Therefore, Obion County has a county fire department on paper, but is unmanned, unfunded and not operational.
There are currently areas of Obion County which rely on fire departments from outside Obion County for their fire protection (Ridgely Fire Department from Lake County, Trimble Fire Department from Dyer County, and Sidonia Fire Department from Weakley County), and there is approximately 15 square miles of southwestern Obion County which has no fire protection.
Three (3) of the municipal departments are offering services on a subscription basis, and five (5) municipal departments are offering services on an as needed basis without subscription or ability to pay for response. The municipal fire departments which utilize a subscription service are not bound to and do not respond to fires on rural properties which do not have a subscription for fire service. The only rural property owners guaranteed to receive fire protection services are those who choose to pay for it. It they choose not to purchase an annual subscription and require fire protection services, they fall on the mercy of a municipal department who provide services on an as needed basis. When such occurs, the responding fire department normally provides those services without compensation.
According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.
Because there is no operational county fire department, Obion County has missed the opportunity to actively pursue receipt of FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding. By taking the steps to make the county fire department operational, Obion County could apply for these grants to provide much needed equipment and funding for the existing fire departments and equip additional fire departments when the need arises.
Even though most municipal fire departments in Obion County have benefited from AFG and CDBG grants to upgrade apparatus and equipment, each department must have operating funds to continue operations. Each individual municipality currently furnishes operating funds for their fire departments without assistance from the county or state. Federal, state and local mandates for training, apparatus, equipment and personnel are costing each fire department more money each year, and fire departments desperately need additional operating funds to stay caught up with these mandates.
Grant funds alone won’t fund the annual operating budget of a fire department. Annual appropriations from local sources are needed for additional operational funds to ensure our municipal fire departments remain organized in a manner to meet the current and future challenges of rural Obion County. The proposal finds that a 0.13% countywide tax increase would cover it.
|
|
| 168 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 15:40
|
I'm actually going to defend the city on this one, GIVEN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, though as a firefighter I don't think I could have not turned on the hose (and if necessary, I'd have paid the $75 for the guy, just this once.) Really, they never should have been sent in the first place (and may not have been, if not for the property next to it). They had no more of an obligation to put out that fire than the Seattle fire department does.
Clearly, it sucks to high heaven that this guy's house burned down. But equally clearly, if the city offers fire protection services to people who don't pay taxes for it, for free, it's going to quickly run a pretty good size deficit, after which one of two things will happen:
1. Services are going to be cut, affecting the people who are actually paying for the service, or
2. Taxes are going to be raised for people that are paying for the service.
Put simply, they can't AFFORD to do this, though it makes for a sensational story and a really crappy photo-op.
Now, clearly, the system as it is completely sucks. They either need to incorporate those areas into the fire protection area (which pretty much HAS to be the right thing to do) or just not offer services outside the area. The fact that they're trying to have this quasi-government, quasi-private entity is going to cause situations like this. And unfortunately, fire services ARE pretty high on the list of things that I think we actually want government to be doing -- it could be privatized in theory, I suppose.
The good news for this guy is that apparently his fire insurance is going to cover the losses (watch your policies in the future as they try to slip in a "homeowner will pay for fire protection services" clause). Bad news is that in addition to being dumb about not paying the $75 for the fire protection, he was also under-insured on the property.
|
|
| 169 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 16:01
|
i wonder what would have happened if someone had lost their life in that fire.
|
|
| 170 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 16:58
|
It would suck a lot, there would be a lot more media attention, and I bet they'd move a lot faster on getting the fire protection plan moving along. Oh, and a few firefighters would either need therapy or quit in frustration.
|
|
| |
| 172 | Boldwin
ID: 38957618 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 20:05
|
You can't criticize him. He's black.
|
|
| 173 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 09:12
|
60% of the population could not tell you exactly what the minimum wage is IMO.
The number one issue for people is jobs. When the Dems increased the minimum wage by 41% over the last few years, do you think that created more jobs or less jobs? And I'm talking about the USA, not China.
|
|
| 174 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 09:48
|
|
|
| 175 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 10:17
|
60% of the population could not tell you exactly what the minimum wage is IMO.
60 percent of the population are not the head of the GOP.
meanwhile, Talent agency for GOP ad called for 'hicky blue collar look'
not that i don't think all political parties do this sort of thing, because i'm sure they do.
|
|
| 176 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 10:21
|
The number one issue for people is jobs. When the Dems increased the minimum wage by 41% over the last few years, do you think that created more jobs or less jobs? And I'm talking about the USA, not China.
Do you have any reason to believe that the majority of minimum wage jobs could be exported? A lot of service jobs have to be here. Further, you'd have a very hard time positioning the Democrats as the party most in favor of offshoring jobs.
|
|
| 177 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 11:02
|
Minimum wage jobs aren't being exported because they don't cost very much. Jobs get exported because the cost to move and set up elsewhere is less than the cost of paying for jobs here.
The most likely jobs to get exported are union jobs, precisely because those jobs often pay a lot more than minimum wage.
Raising the minimum wage isn't about creating jobs--that is asking the wrong question. Raising the minimum wage is about giving working people enough to live on. Because of inflation (and, as a result, the CPI), the real minimum wage actually dropped for a long time--something like 30% between the end of the 1970s and the 2003 increase.
|
|
| 178 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 11:21
|
The minimum wage isn't designed for a breadwinner family of four. It's for entry level jobs. 90% of people earning the minimum wage are no longer on the minimum wage one year later. Teenage unemployment is awful. If a legal citizen wants to work for $6 per hour and an employer wants to hire them for $6 per hour, I don't see what the problem is. But, the federal government knows better.
The people that make $2 over the minimum wage also have to be increased and so on up the line. It's not just the minimum workers. Some jobs were replace by robots or eliminated altogether.
So, I ask again....When the Dems increased the minimum wage by 41% over the last few years, do you think that created more jobs or less jobs?
|
|
| 179 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 11:54
|
It's for entry level jobs.
There is nothing in the statute about this wage being limited to entry level jobs. I think you are confusing effect with intention. Minimum wage laws came into being in order to offer some fairness to sweatshop workers.
The truth is that companies will pay whatever they can get away with. While there does appear to be a higher teen unemployment rate when minimum wage laws increase, those are rapidly followed by a stabilization in the rates as the markets adjust. There has not, to my knowledge, been any long term adult job displacement as a result of increases in minimum wages.
Ask as many times as you want to, it still isn't asking the right question. Might as well ask if the minimum wage law made Israel more agreeable to a two-state solution.
|
|
| 180 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 13:02
|
GOP loves to say "cut spending!!!" but can't name anything they'd cut:
Here's a hint to those who want to vote GOP to get spending "under control": It was the GOP who spent out of control for years. Now they say they won't cut "entitlements" or "national defense." And they seem unable (or unwilling) to specify any real cuts anywhere else--in a few cases, being unable to come up with a single program they would cut or eliminate. You're being used.
|
|
| |
| 182 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 20:30
|
Nevada GOP Chair endorses Reid.
Not a good sign when you are the GOP nominee for US Senate and the current State chair endorses Harry Reid, of all people.
Will the Wacky Right hold it together a few more weeks? Or will the cracks in their makeup reveal the horrors of the candidates to voters beforehand? It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in Nevada, which would be a real feather in their cap for the GOP.
|
|
| 183 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 21:24
|
I am pessimistic for the results come November. I see the Republicans taking over the house handily, the Senate, and a majority of the governorships up for election.
|
|
| 184 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 21:42
|
So you'll be pleasantly surprised if the Dems hold off the hordes?
|
|
| 185 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 23:43
|
I think the Illinois senate seat falls Republican which many national experts haven't picked up on yet, but overall it would really take a perfect tsunami to pick up ten senate seats. Too many are just in the wrong states this particular point in the senate election cycle from the Rep POV.
The Illinois Dem candidate is just performing so poorly on the trail and has so much baggage. The only thing that could save him even given the blue state, is if Obama's repeated visits so as not to embarrassingly lose his former personal seat actually are a plus, AND the Dems successfully re-energizing their base much better than it appears now.
|
|
| 186 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 23:44
|
Even given the blueness of the state and the traditionally high turnout of the Illinois dead.
|
|
| 187 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 01:06
|
SharRon Angle is at it again, and now it's a doozy.
U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle told a crowd of supporters that the country needs to address a "militant terrorist situation" that has allowed Islamic religious law to take hold in some American cities.
My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."
aside from the normal bat$hit craziness of that statement is the fact that THERE IS NO FRANKFORD, TEXAS.
|
|
| 188 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 01:51
|
Creeping Sharia in the USA. Here is how it starts. It ends up like in Europe where certain towns are completely no-go zones for non-muslims.
|
|
| 189 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:05
|
ROFL! Yes, it starts with a bad analogy, then with bad logic fear mongering is introduced...
We certainly wouldn't want Muslim sharia law to replace our current Christian sharia law.
|
|
| 190 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:15
|
Boldwin -
You are probably right about IL
Illinois Voters, Unhappy With Candidates, Show Few Signs of Committing
biba - I am pessimistic for the results come November. I see the Republicans taking over the house handily, the Senate, and a majority of the governorships up for election.
You really ought to check out The fivethirtyeight blog at the NY Times. Nate Silver currently gives the Republicans a ~20% of winning the Senate. They may very well win the House, but without the Senate, little of the Republican agenda ever gets passed.
Don't let the conservative mainstream media try to dampen your enthusiasm and keep you from voting, that's what those clowns want you to do.
|
|
| 191 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:26
|
I would revise your assessment. Whether they win the Senate or not, all it takes is winning the House to defund Obama's operations. I spose some of Obama's marxist minions might stay in place working for free...
On the otherhand an aggressive republican agenda will be impossible for the same reason Obama had it so difficult. The Senate almost takes a super-majority to get anything done now days. Repealing Obama-care completely for example is probably undoable without 60 votes in the Senate and I don't think there are enuff bluedogs willing to buck the old bucks to get the job done. So defunding and trimming at the edges will be the order of the day.
|
|
| 192 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:34
|
If Republicans don't win the House, or don't end up with 51 in the Senate, then nothing will change at all. It'll be interesting to see what the Tea Party does if they don't win one or the other.
I suppose a prediction thread might be in order. My top picks for GOP pickups are:
PA WI IL
|
|
| 193 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:35
|
Look on the bright side, SZ. With the tactic of blaming Bush for everything suffering diminishing returns, Obama can start blaming everything on the House Republicans.
|
|
| 194 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:37
|
PD
There is no way they could win the Senate and not the House.
The interesting thing will be how the Tea Party reacts when Republicans don't cut spending enuff.
|
|
| 195 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 02:50
|
One thing we will get the precise answer to will be 'how much discretion does the president have to shift funds around after congress has allocated it'.
I have this funny vision of EZ-kill Emanuel running death panels out of broom closets after the House defunds them.
|
|
| 196 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 03:27
|
I agree with your calls on PA, Il and Wis.
|
|
| 197 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 04:25
|
Rossi over Patty Murray? Anyone that stupid has got to be vulnerable. Even there.
Colorado is definately in play. Very winnable.
I know it goes against every straw of conventional wisdom, but Christine O'Donnell is so so very independent everyman in a season when the electorate is out for incumbent insider blood...
I don't claim to have a feel for the eastern seaboard but I would not be surprised if she was the real shocker of 2010 eclipsing Scott Brown.
Anyone local have a feel for how her opponent comes across on the trail?
|
|
| 198 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 08:16
|
I have this funny vision of EZ-kill Emanuel running death panels out of broom closets
Many people had these types of hallucinatory visions back in the 60s and 70s. Often attributable to LSD flashbacks. Whatcha been taking lately?
|
|
| 199 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 08:47
|
Creeping Sharia in the USA. Here is how it starts. It ends up like in Europe where certain towns are completely no-go zones for non-muslims.
kind of like places in the US which are no-go zones for African Americans.
you're actually giving credit to Angle's proclamations, even accepting the fact that one of her examples is in a town that doesn't even exist?
|
|
| 200 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 09:17
|
That's a good point about Frankford, let me adjust my scoresheet. I'm going to deduct one point for that. here is the updated sheet:
End Obamacare...+500 Get rid of reid...+100 Give R's majority..+50 Stop global warming tax...+300 Lower taxes...+600 Reduce gov't.....+500 Not help unions...+250 Frankford, TX...-1 Angle Total...+2299
At least reid is catching up.
|
|
| 201 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 09:41
|
#188
What does that video have to do with Sharia?
|
|
| 202 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 09:53
|
I believe Sharon Angle is refering to this Illinois story of muslims demanding an apology from a Frankfort Illinois official who opposed sharia in America.
|
|
| 204 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 10:10
|
The actual e-mail that drew the muslim Ire...FRANKFORT, IL—An assessor with the Frankfort township in Illinois has forwarded an email containing vile anti-Islamic comments.
The e-mail, circulated last month, said America should follow the lead of Australia’s former prime minister John Howard, who said Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should get out of Australia.
“Once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our Christian beliefs or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, the right to leave,” the e-mail said, supposedly quoting Howard.
“Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the back bone to start speaking and voicing the same truths,” the e-mail continued. “If you agree, please send this on.” The kicker is that the putatively moderate muslim organization complaining, isn't saying that they too do not wish to see sharia in America. They just want to make sure no one dares complain as it is implimented.
They are following the 'wolf-in-sheeps-clothing' strategy of the fabian society. Gradualism.
|
|
| 205 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 10:21
|
Funny I lived in a muslim-dominated NYC neighborhood for over 4 years and I don't have a clue about this Sharia law stuff.
My understanding of Sharia is that it's a thing that is interpreted differently from sect to sect. Some are more hardline, others focus on one particular message/ideal or another. Even within the Catholc Cannon, you'll find stark differences between what is practiced in one country compared with another. I know this is true of all of Christianity (certainly here everyone is aware of the differences between the many denominations and smaller sects, all of which might be found right in the same region) and such difference seem even more apparent in Judiasm.
Lumping all Muslims (or all mosques, or all clerics) into one group that interprets and adheres to sharia in one particular way is nothing more than a device employed to sell bigotry.
|
|
| 206 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 10:23
|
Until and when the GOP politicians actually point out specific and meaningful spending cuts, Republicans are just engaging in wishful thinking to believe they actually will.
Some of us don't want to go on that snipe hunt anymore. The myth of the GOP as small government advocates has been exposed for years now.
To continue with the predictions, here is where the GOP will not win in Senate races:
CT CO CA NY (either race)
Most of these races, frankly, aren't all that interesting from either side.
|
|
| 207 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 10:44
|
Nice score sheet, B7. Just one problem with it, if by some chance the people of Nevada elect that 82 IQ into office, she won't deliver any of those points. See, she'll move to Washington, MO and be driving around looking for the Capital. She'll miss all the important votes.
Well, you can give her a +100 for Speeding up Global Warming with all of her driving around :)
Give R's majority..+50
Sarah Palin hates that word, B7. I'm surprised you would use it, even in abbreviated form.
|
|
| 208 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 10:47
|
The kicker is that the putatively moderate muslim organization complaining, isn't saying that they too do not wish to see sharia in America. They just want to make sure no one dares complain as it is implimented.
The kicker is that you seem genuinely concerned that sharia being implemented as dominant in this country is actually a possibility, a concern that belies any faith in the American people or the American justice system.
More likely it's just a ploy to spread fear and loathing against a miniscule percentage of the population that has virtually no power in the political and social fabric of the country.
|
|
| 209 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:00
|
Creeping socialism worked without you noticing. Why won't it work for them?
|
|
| 210 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:06
|
Creeping socialism worked without you noticing
What I've noticed in my lifetime is the dismantling of the New Deal, almost the opposite of what you claim. Ponderous that you've failed to notice.
|
|
| 211 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:09
|
Creeping socialism worked without you noticing...
no, not really. no such thing has happened, no matter how many times you lie about it.
I believe Sharon Angle is refering to this Illinois story of muslims demanding an apology from a Frankfort Illinois official who opposed sharia in America.
so, somehow, her proclaimation that Sharia law has taken effect in the non-existent town of FrankforD, Texas, is related to a letter from a town official in FrankforT, Illinois, another town where Sharia law has not taken hold either?
interesting observation.
|
|
| 212 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:14
|
Boldwin - Not sure if you knew this but Jews have their own court system right here in the good ole US of A. If 2 Jews have an issue if they both agree, instead of going to court they go to a Jewish court of Rabbi's. But I guess Fox News has just not gotten to that yet.
|
|
| 213 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:22
|
Jewish law based on the Torah!?
How many National Guard are stationed in New Canaan, CT?
|
|
| 214 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:27
|
Dhimmis, almost all of you. A sucker to every tyrant who comes along.
Can't believe in a benevolent God you cannot see so you go clinging to every heartless bastard who comes along with more will to power than you possess.
|
|
| 215 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:32
|
Wait a minute, widdle. You mean that a population twice that of Muslims in the US already have a parallel justice system in place--and have for years???
Clearly Rick Sanchez was right! We need people to sound the alarm about this creeping jewism.
|
|
| 216 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:57
|
I am unaware of any jihad analog in Jewish tradition.
|
|
| 217 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 12:12
|
Youre also not aware of any message of peace in the Koran. You're not the authority you present yourself as.
|
|
| 218 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 12:35
|
Trust me Boldwin - I'll find you stuff in the Torah about destroying other people.
|
|
| 219 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 12:46
|
I am unaware of any jihad analog in Jewish tradition.
seriously?
go read the old testament bud.
i don't know the exact passage, but i know part of Numbers says something akin to: "God told Moses to speak to the children of Israel, and told them to go to Canaan and drive out all the inhabitants and destroy their idols."
pretty sure there's another passage elsewhere that says something about going into Canaan and smiting the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites and taking over the land for the Israelites.
|
|
| 220 | Boldwin
ID: 50950811 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 12:51
|
There is zip zero nada instructions anywhere in the Bible Hebrew scriptures or Greek, to ever lift a sword anywhere but in the promised land. And Christians are given the injunction not to lift the sword anywhere.
Therefore there is no instruction to military or governmental conquest of the world in any sense other than spiritual anywhere in the Bible.
|
|
| 221 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 12:55
|
Except, of course, that those pesky people who happen to live in the promised land are screwed.
You seem to be forgetting King David's wars as well. The Amalekites, for example, might have a different view. If they hadn't been wiped out.
|
|
| 222 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 13:00
|
This conversation is badly off topic.
|
|
| 223 | WiddleAvi
ID: 32559 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 13:05
|
Boldwin - Actually Jews are commanded to wipe Amalek off the face of this earth.
link
|
|
| 224 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 13:23
|
zip zero nada instructions... to ever lift a sword anywhere but in the promised land
As far as I know the conversion by sword stuff in the Koran is specifically recounted within the context of a particular war but you've never been interested in that distinction.
|
|
| 225 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 13:29
|
222 Razor
I don't agree. There is unquestionably a growing anti-Islamic sentiment on the right which is increasingly espoused (and exploited) by the GOP.
|
|
| 226 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 13:43
|
There is unquestionably a growing anti-Islamic sentiment on the right which is increasingly espoused (and exploited) by the GOP.
Why do you think that is?
|
|
| 227 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 13:55
|
#222: IMO, the whole point of conflating politics and religion is badly off topic for both politics and religion. But we continue to deal with the fact that the modern GOP can't distinguish between the two.
|
|
| 228 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 14:04
|
#226
Bigotry and fearmongering. No diffeerent from every other wave of immigrants in US history, except that it's compounded by the opportunities provided by Islamist terrorism and the new media.
|
|
| 229 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 14:21
|
There is zip zero nada instructions anywhere in the Bible Hebrew scriptures or Greek, to ever lift a sword anywhere but in the promised land.
so, there is an exception because it's "in country"?
And Christians are given the injunction not to lift the sword anywhere.
then why do you routinely support those who do?
|
|
| 230 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 14:36
|
Pretty convenient, right?
|
|
| 231 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 16:03
|
"Dhimmis, almost all of you. A sucker to every tyrant who comes along."
I dunno what that means, but I'm assuming you were trying to insult us.
|
|
| 232 | Boldwin
ID: 169792 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 03:07
|
But we continue to deal with the fact that the modern GOP can't distinguish between the two.
It is Islam which does not recognize any separation between the two. When muslims were trapped in their own festering dysfunctional countries that was not a problem. Twenty thousand unemployed radicalized muslims in a French muslim-only ghetto are a whole nuther thing. In a mobile world where borders barely exist and radicals plan mumbai style raids and can freely roam...we are in a whole new ballgame.
Not sure how much longer you can get away with that head in sand position.
|
|
| 233 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 09:15
|
Not sure how much longer you can get away with that head in sand position.
it's how how YOU handle most rebuttal posts to anything you say. it's how you consistently ignore anything regarding Christian terrorists, and now, how there are bible passages that instruct non-Muslims to kill in the name of their own religion.
you rarely address counter points to yours, unless it's to call someone a troll or some other name.
|
|
| 234 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 09:54
|
My point said nothing about the current GOP obsession with Muslims. It was about the way current GOP "leaders" simply have no church/state separation. Some, in fact, are making hay about their efforts to institutionally destroy any separation between the state and their church--i.e., they want a theocracy.
Somehow, criticizing how other governments run their countries isn't a very good rebuttal to this.
|
|
| 235 | Boldwin
ID: 169792 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 10:57
|
so, there is an exception because it's "in country"? - Tree
Of course. God pronounced the death sentence on those people in that land for their repulsive child sacrifices etc., and Isreal was to carry that out. Which is a far cry from a worldwide jihad to take over the world.
|
|
| 236 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 11:03
|
When muslims were trapped in their own festering dysfunctional countries that was not a problem. Twenty thousand unemployed radicalized muslims in a French muslim-only ghetto are a whole nuther thing
Most of those countries were conquered, colonized, administered and exploited by Europeans, yet you seem suprised that those 3rd and 4th generation Muslims who were imported to Europe for little more than slave labor, are now radicalized more along social and economic lines than religious.
Perhaps you think the citizens of North Africa thought it a great idea that Germany, Italy, England, France and the US used their homeland to stage battle after battle before moving the festivities back to the European continent.
Maybe you think Lawrence of Arabia was actually an Arabian.
|
|
| 237 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 11:14
|
worldwide jihad to take over the world
Perhaps you missed it. We're the ones shooting missles into Pakistan on a daily basis.
Please explain how Muslims, with their advanced military technology, not to mention their incredibly organized system of miltary and political leaders among the many countries where they are dominant, will succeed in bringing the US, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil to their knees.
They barely can get an upper hand in Somalia and Yemen. You've created an alternative reality.
|
|
| 238 | Boldwin
ID: 169792 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 11:49
|
The Fabian Society didn't have a bullet and you're now a raving socialist.
Now you are a frog being gradually boiled by another totalitarian aggressor and you can't feel a thing. 'Please build a rabat...I didn't get 9/11, so you can stick the bayonet in a little farther'.
|
|
| 239 | Boldwin
ID: 169792 Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 11:56
|
The kicker is when they are so emboldened by your softness that they actually start WWIII you'll find a way to blame it on those who saw it coming.
BTW Europe will be a majority muslim continent in short order and we'll see if they have any bullets and missles then.
|
|
| 240 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 08:49
|
#238 and 239 are completely incoherent, except how it points out the desire for perpetual warfare, likely in hopes of realizing Biblical prophecy.
you're now a raving socialist.
I'm not a socialist, raving or otherwise. It's a lazy claim presented for effect, and fails on all levels.
|
|
| 241 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 11:58
|
The kicker is when they are so emboldened by your softness that they actually start WWIII you'll find a way to blame it on those who saw it coming.
This is a common theme. You pat yourself on the back for hypothetical situations and improbable speculation, while chiding others softness and frog-like behavior. That's not an argument.
So let's address the above statement.
Starting WWIII.
In order for there to be a world war, certain global conditions need to be in place. There needs to be alliances between competing global powers; powers that are militarily capable of competing with each other on some type of equal footing.
Currently, there are three nations with the military prowess that meet these qualifications: the United States, Russia and China. As we saw in WWI(Austro-Hungary) and WWII(Poland), minor players can play a big role in igniting a global conflict, but the elements between the major powers need to be in place in order for the ignition to be successful.
Current minor players Israel and Iran only fit into the scenario if the major powers find it necessary to align themselves with one of these nations. Obviously, the US is aligned with Israel. That would leave Iran needing either Russia or China to align with it in order for the conditions to rise to world war. Neither Russia nor China would be willing to jeopardize their security to align themselves with Iran. Neither country has anything to gain, except possibly controlling the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Russia has plenty of its own oil and gas. Economically, they would benefit greatly from stalled energy deliveries, but they would also lose a big chunk of their major markets. Hardly worth it. Similarly, China could benefit from a monopoly of Persian Gulf energy, but that energy still has to reach China(not very likely in a world war scenario), plus they lose the major markets they now have from manufactured products, which they need the energy for in the first place.
So who aligns with Iran? Syria? Azerbaijan?
Similar discussion could be centered around minor players India and Pakistan, nuclear-armed nations with long-simmering animosity.
But you have to make some kind of presentation to support how the major military powers align themselves in such a conflict, if they decide to, as opposed to simply saying when WWIII comes don't forget that I told you so.
|
|
| 242 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 21:07
|
Carl Paladino? he's a swell guy...
New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino criticized gays Sunday, saying he didn't want children "to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option," compared to heterosexuality.
"It isn't," Paladino said at a stop in Brooklyn, New York.
|
|
| 243 | sarge33rd
ID: 47847175 Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 21:25
|
Homosexuality is an option?
Like being born to poor folks and not rich ones? Like being genetically predisposed to being tall vs short, thin vs fat? Is being born with a genetic flaw (Downs for ex, and no insult intended to any with such in their families) an option?
When (if ever), will the *ahem* "moral majority", figure out that fear mongering based on lies and innuendo; is CONTRARY to what this nation was founded to represent?
|
|
| 244 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:04
|
Homosexuality is an option?
You cannot control who your parents are, your height, or retardation. You can control who you have consensual sex with.
|
|
| 245 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:06
|
Sexaulity isn't a matter of which gender you have sex with. It's which you find yourself physically attracted to.
|
|
| 246 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:10
|
It's which you find yourself physically attracted to.
What is your point? Is that how you want to define legal sexual activity?
|
|
| 247 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:13
|
Why do we have to define it? Since when is marriage defined by the sexual activity within it?
|
|
| 248 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:22
|
Then marry a horse.
|
|
| 249 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:33
|
Uh, right. That's your response? You decide to just skip the question and go right for the bestiality card?
|
|
| 250 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:41
|
Or marry an 8 year old. If marriage is not defined by the sexual activity within it, as you said, what is it defined by?
|
|
| 251 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 13:52
|
none of this has to do with who you're f*cking, or who you're marrying.
it has to do with what gender you are attracted.
so playing the beastiality card, or the pedo card, or the impending necrophilia card, are not related at all.
what this has to do is respecting and treating your fellow human's rights to not be treated with disrespect, scorn, or hate.
(and i'm only bringing hate into the conversaton because Paladino's comments come on the heels of 8 or 9 men and boys TORTURING 3 gay men and boys in New York City...)
|
|
| 252 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 14:00
|
Marriage, as always, is defined by a public commitment by two consenting adults to share their life, hearth, and wealth together.
That's it. Gays have never asked the current definition to be changed from this. They certainly wouldn't want there to be a sexual activity component inserted. [And neither would heterosexuals. Are monogamous non-sexually active married couples to be defined away?]
|
|
| 253 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 14:02
|
Is that how you want to define legal sexual activity?
Dude, you're all over the place here. In the first place. I'm not sure that Paladino was talking about marriage. And I'm quite sure he wasn't defining... legal sexual activity... [???]
But anyway, as I said one's sexual activity is not what defines his or her sexuality. It's what attracts him or her.
Do you understand the difference between a straight person and a person who lives a straight life, but is actually "in the closet"?
If marriage is not defined by the sexual activity within it, as you said, what is it defined by?
I think in most contexts (including in the context of the debate about gay marriage, which is what I believe you're talking about here) marriage is defined by who you get married to.
Are you under the impression that the state will invalidate a hetero marriage if they find evidence of homosexual activity?
|
|
| 257 | Boldwin
ID: 519331116 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 17:47
|
It's just amazing.
ACT UP should cut you guys a check for doing their jamming for them. Did you chose to become a homosexual activist or were you born that way?
|
|
| 258 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 17:53
|
Hmmm. I looked in vain for a rebuttal of the facts... I guess when you don't have facts yourself, you just toss about slams.
|
|
| 259 | Boldwin
ID: 519331116 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 18:03
|
PD
Facts? You mean like your bogus historical definition of marriage?
|
|
| 260 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 19:22
|
ACT UP should cut you guys a check for doing their jamming for them. Did you chose to become a homosexual activist or were you born that way?
i'd like to think i was born that way - you know, a decent human being who believer in equality for all.
i also like to think of my self as politically relevant, which you, apparently are not. much like yourself, ACT UP hasn't been politically relevant for years. it's not the 80s anymore. heck, it's not the 90s, or even the 00's anymore.
ACT UP really hasn't been important for a decade or more.
|
|
| 261 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 21:15
|
ACT UP should cut you guys a check for doing their jamming for them. Did you chose to become a homosexual activist or were you born that way?
Who knows. I do know that chose to value my freedom and to value the freedom of others. Part of that freedom is not imposing my morality onto others, provided their actions don't effect me. I fail to see how any two people getting married effects me in any way.
|
|
| 262 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 11, 2010, 21:27
|
ACT UP really hasn't been important for a decade or more.
Which puts them right in the wheelhouse of Baldwin boogeymen.
I fail to see how any two people getting married effects me in any way.
Exactly. And the arguments against gay marriage, like the Prop 8 proponents, really boil down to "we can't go down that slippery slope because we don't know what will happen." And that's not enough to justify the "end of western civilization" argument they are making.
|
|
| 263 | Boldwin
ID: 519331116 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 01:40
|
'Anything goes' and 'civilization' are mutually exclusive things.
|
|
| 264 | Boldwin
ID: 519331116 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 02:07
|
Altho to be fair, you guys aren't going for anything goes. You are pulling for a cohesively anti-God pagan culture.
|
|
| 265 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 08:08
|
No, I'm pulling for everyone respecting each other and not attempting to impose their morality and beliefs on everyone else.
You seem to feel that everyone needs to accept your morals and beliefs.
|
|
| 266 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 08:30
|
You are pulling for a cohesively anti-God pagan culture.
good lord. seriously? where does this random stuff come from!?!?
the most anti-God sentiment on this board comes from you. God is about love, and loving your fellow man. you express more hatred for people who aren't like you than anyone i have ever "met".
|
|
| 267 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 10:48
|
anti-God pagan culture
Replace pagan with infidel and it sounds like a radical Islamic phrase.
|
|
| 268 | sarge33rd
ID: 47847175 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 11:13
|
Currently reading, Healing Memories by David Seamands. I'd suggest it for many.
For some, I'd recommend paying particular attention to the section "Problems with Neurotic Perfectionism", in Chp 8 "Difficulties From the Distortion of God".
|
|
| 269 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:00
|
God is about love, and loving your fellow man.
No literally though. You are confused.
|
|
| 270 | Boldwin
ID: 519331116 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:07
|
God is about love, and loving your fellow man.
Which is why I spend so much of my time trying to get people of all sorts out of this burning house. Even the ones who don't believe it's on fire.
Even arsonists like you, Tree, are welcome, should you consider becoming a former arsonist.
|
|
| 271 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:04
|
Perhaps you should stop trying to put the fire out with gasoline.
|
|
| 272 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:35
|
Which is why I spend so much of my time trying to get people of all sorts out of this burning house. Even the ones who don't believe it's on fire.
Even arsonists like you, Tree, are welcome, should you consider becoming a former arsonist.
why on earth would anyone want to follow the words of someone who is bigoted, anti-semitic, intolerant of homosexuality, and in general seems to have a hateful attitude toward nearly anyone who is not white, christian, and follows a far right wing political idealogy?
|
|
| 273 | Boldwin
ID: 519331116 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:52
|
Your delusional projections aside, the Bible says Christ's second visit would be just like the days of Noah...
...and some people might conceivably like to listen to the warning in time and survive.
|
|
| 274 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 16:03
|
why on earth would anyone want to follow the words of someone who is bigoted, anti-semitic, intolerant of homosexuality...
many of your posts here reflect this attitude, so it's really hard to deny it.
and some people might conceivably like to listen to the warning in time and survive.
which is part of your problem. you are celebrating the End Times, and you twist, and in some cases invent, facts to suit your hopes.
|
|
| 276 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 19:21
|
AlterNet According to FEC data, only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed.
Last week, when the Senate considered a bill to force such disclosure, every single Republican voted against it -- thereby revealing the GOP's true colors, and presumed benefactors. (To understand how far the GOP has come, nearly ten years ago campaign disclosure was supported by 48 of 54 Republican senators.) GOVtrack.US page on S. 3628: A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.
Sep 23, 2010: Upon reconsideration, cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill (S.3628) not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 59 - 39. Summary of S. 3628: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act
|
|
| 277 | Razor
ID: 265539 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 20:13
|
Disclosure in government operations is almost always a good thing.
|
|
| 278 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 20:15
|
Unless you're receiving an election funding windfall originating from dubious or otherwise unpopular sources.
|
|
| 279 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 21:40
|
I could be wrong, but wasn't there a fairly large difference in the amounts raised and spent by the candidates in the last presidential election?
That being said I agree that more disclosure in virtually all forms of government is good.
I know the ads are just starting to ramp up, but why do Republican candidates think people will vote for them simply because they aren't democrats. Apparently Obama and Nancy Pelosi are the 2nd coming of Hitler and Mussolini.
While I don't agree with everything Obama has done, why would anyone logically vote in a different party simple because they are different? Obama definitely got plenty of anti-Bush votes, but he also had plans for what the wanted to change. Not simple, "Hey, I'm not George Bush"
|
|
| 280 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:09
|
When does the Tides Foundation, the heart and soul of progressive funding, start revealing donors?Now comes the Tides Foundation and its recent offshoot, the Tides Center, creating a new model for grantmaking -- one that strains the boundaries of U.S. tax law in the pursuit of its leftist, activist goals.
Set up in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.
In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”
|
|
| 281 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:12
|
When does the Tides Foundation... start revealing donors?
Not any time soon, thanks to Senate Republicans.
|
|
| 282 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:21
|
Lol...yeah, otherwise that was right around the corner. As if.
|
|
| |
| 284 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:52
|
I just read that bill and there is no provision I could find that would apply to the Tides Foundation.
Sunlight is good, shine it everywhere equally or quit pretending you believe in it because provisions that only hurt one side don't further the cause. If all calls for transparency are structured partisan attacks the odds of full transparency ever developing are minimal to say the least.
|
|
| 285 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:56
|
What's the flaw? Why won't it affect Tides? How is it partisan?
|
|
| 286 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:04
|
Read the thing yourself and tell me what section would interupt the TIDES Foundation's money laundering methods. Nothing in the act applies to foundations as far as I could determine.
|
|
| 287 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:05
|
Your post #281 demands that question be answered.
|
|
| 288 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:07
|
Then allow me to rephrase by asking what is different about Tides that exempts them from the regulations in the disclosure act...
|
|
| 289 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:14
|
The Tides Foundation is a foundation. Look for the word foundation in the bill.
|
|
| 290 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:34
|
Speaking of the Tides Foundation, it's amazing where a media disinformation campaign can lead.
|
|
| 291 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 01:29
|
Paladino backtracks...ooops.
"I could have used a better word than 'brainwashed'," Mr Paladino told The Times, adding: "Kids are being taught in school about homosexuality and I don't think that's proper." He insisted: "I am 100per cent supportive of gay rights."
mmmhmmm..
|
|
| 292 | Boldwin
ID: 79481219 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 03:38
|
In looking for the connections between Alfred Kinsey and NAMBLA I ran into a quote from leaders of that burgeoning movement that said, "Capture the kids before eight or it’s too late."
Brainwashing was the correct term. Being against letting deviants brainwash our children behind our backs is not incompatible with people being treated with basic human dignity. Your problem isn't with me, it's with God, until you start messing with my children. Then it's personal.
|
|
| 311 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:04
|
Live in Chicago, and want to vote for a rich whitey this November?
Now's your chance!
|
|
| 312 | Boldwin
ID: 25923143 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:11
|
Fighting for America with your life on the line and want your vote counted? Sorry, your probably republican.
Who would have guessed it would happen in Illinois? I am shocked, just shocked. Hit me completely from out of the blue.
*/sarc*
|
|
| 313 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:40
|
There is no way that those ballots won't be counted. You can take it to the bank that the Justice Department will force Illinois to extend their deadlines to ensure it.
The Obama Justice Department, I might add.
|
|
| |
| 315 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:16
|
What is the point of 314?
|
|
| 316 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:23
|
A more succinct a summary of the current state of the GOP goals would be hard to find, yes?
[The fact that you are likely to agree with the statement proves my point.]
|
|
| 317 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:24
|
Confirmation of a blindly obstructionist agenda.
|
|
| 318 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:32
|
And Democrats have never said that about a Republican President?
|
|
| 319 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:40
|
Heh.
Nothing in there about:
-helping get people back to work -winning the War on Terror and making this country safe -fixing our immigration problem -growing the economy -fixing a wacked tax system
etc etc etc.
MITH is exactly right: The GOP has, as its top priority, the political defeat of the President in two years and all other goals, policies, and ideas stand subservient to that goal.
No wonder that they can't pick a single program they would cut from the federal budget. They aren't interested putting forth policy ideas to try to fix the problems of this country.
|
|
| 320 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:42
|
And Democrats have never said that about a Republican President?
|
|
| 321 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:47
|
Should be easy to find, if so. Go at it. Look for a Democrat at that level saying, during a midterm election, that the top Democratic goal is to defeat the President in two years rather than anything else.
Good luck.
Meanwhile, the GOP apologists continue to talk out of both sides of their mouth: According to the FOX meme that the GOP has swallowed, Democrats are at once pervasively, consistently, and horribly wrong about virtually everything. And we (the GOP) act like political bullies because we're talking our leads from the Democrats.
Call me when you find a quote. Of a leading GOP member who is policy-driven.
|
|
| 322 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 14:33
|
The requirement for TLB is to find Democratic leadership in 2002 saying that it was their top goal to defeat GWB in 2004. You won't...
Mitch McConnell would generate the ridiculously high negatives that Newt Gingrich had back in the late nineties if anyone actually listened to him. Has a state simultaneously produced two bigger embarrassments to the decorum of the Senate than Kentucky with McConnell and Bunning?
|
|
| 323 | weykool
ID: 138481617 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:28
|
Nothing in there about:
-helping get people back to work -winning the War on Terror and making this country safe -fixing our immigration problem -growing the economy -fixing a wacked tax system
Nothing on this list will ever happen with this president so think of it as a first step.
|
|
| 324 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:33
|
Nothing in there about:
-helping get people back to work -winning the War on Terror and making this country safe -fixing our immigration problem -growing the economy -fixing a wacked tax system
Nothing on this list will ever happen with this president so think of it as a first step.
none of these things happened with the last president either. in fact, it was while he was president that all these things went severely down hill.
oh, and for the record, the economy has improved. no amount of talking points can dispute the reality that the Stimulus Plan helped prevent things from being much, much, much worse.
|
|
| 325 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:43
|
Nothing on this list will ever happen with this president so think of it as a first step.
Surely you can see the difference between proposing solutions which might (or might not) work, and refusing to propose any solutions?
|
|
| 326 | weykool
ID: 138481617 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:48
|
Tree...there is zero proof that the stimulus has done any good. Given that we now owe more money because of it you could argue that it has hurt the economy. Unemployment has gotten worse not better. Saying it could be worse is complete rubbish.
I agree that Bush did nothing on immigration. Growing the economy and getting people back to work go hand in hand. But when you are in office for 2 years and you pass two major pieces of legislation that will send millions of jobs overseas the first thing you need to do is stop the bleeding. As for winning the war on terror, there is no question that the current president has made us ripe for another attack.
|
|
| 327 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:52
|
"Saying it could be worse is complete rubbish."
Erm, no it isn't. If unemployment is X% now, but it would have been X+2% without the stimulus, then, clearly, yes it could have been worse.
You may disagree with Tree (and basically every economist in the universe) that the stimulus actually had that effect, but the argument itself is not "complete rubbish". If you want to try to make the argument that all those economists are wrong, then by all means, go right ahead, we'll get some popcorn. It's going to take actual evidence though.
|
|
| 328 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:54
|
Define "good."
Since there is proof that the stimulus (1) put money back in people's pockets through billions in reduced taxes and (2) kept unemployment from getting worse, I suspect your definition of "good" might not be the same as the rest of our's.
Perhaps those things aren't "good" according to your definition?
|
|
| 329 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 15:54
|
"As for winning the war on terror, there is no question that the current president has made us ripe for another attack."
Rather than go on, I think I'll simply say this:
http://xkcd.com/285/
|
|
| 330 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 17:07
|
I wasn't sure where to put this, it could have gone into the Democratic party thread just as easily.
Want to know who is giving money to your representatives?
Influence-tracker
|
|
| 331 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 17:14
|
Tree...there is zero proof that the stimulus has done any good.
that's just not true. there have been countless articles - linked to in this forum - discussing the positive impact of the Stimulus.
As for winning the war on terror, there is no question that the current president has made us ripe for another attack.
could you provide some evidence of this other than your own beliefs. as for my beliefs, wars on several fronts, the de-stablization of Iraq, and so forth, compliments of GW Bush, made this country much less safe than it had been before.
|
|
| |
| 333 | Boldwin
ID: 389292620 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 21:36
|
As for winning the war on terror, there is no question that the current president has made us ripe for another attack.Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has sworn in [Mohamed Elibiary - B] a member of her agency's Advisory Council who is a strong supporter of the radical Islamist theologian who calls for "war" with the non-Muslim world...
Mohamed Elibiary, president and CEO of the Freedom and Justice Foundation of Carrollton, Texas, also spoke at a conference that honored the anti-U.S. founder of the Iranian Islamic revolution, Ayatollah [hostage crisis - B] Khomeini. Elibiary has strongly criticized the government's persecution of fundraisers for Hamas and is a defender of the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR.
Elibiary fervently endorses the teachings of Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, who is widely considered the father of the modern Islamic terrorist revolution. Osama bin Laden and terror groups worldwide rely on Qutb for their fatwas and ideology. I know I feel safer already.
|
|
| 334 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 22:44
|
Broken record.
|
|
| 335 | Boldwin
ID: 389292620 Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 01:11
|
Dems' record on supporting our enemies and sabotaging our defenses certainly is a broken record.
|
|
| 336 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 01:33
|
Dems' record on supporting our enemies and sabotaging our defenses certainly is a broken record.
and if by broken record you mean "yet another figment of your imagination," you're absolutely correct.
|
|
| 337 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 01:57
|
I don't think you have a clear idea of the word "enemies" nor "defenses," Baldwin.
This comes, I think, from fear mongering entering into your soul. Literally. Since there is no level of security which will make one completely safe, there is an addiction to piling layer upon layer of "security" in order to get closer and closer to "safe" while never actually getting there.
Working yourself into a tizzy isn't actually a symptom of being less "safe."
|
|
| 338 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 10:13
|
I actually totally agree with Boldwin, noted Democrats like Reagan, who supplied the Taliban for years with weapons, certainly did make the country less safer.
Wait, what?
Oh, never mind. He's got an (R) there so he's immune to criticism from the apolitical person.
|
|
| 339 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 13:09
|
Bachman rails on about the cost of Obama's India trip.
Besides yelling about Obama spending more money money per day on the trip than the entire war in Afghanistan, I like this little gem:
"If it's that difficult and that expensive, maybe we should use video conferencing for these meetings, to have meetings between our two government leaders. Or inviting them to come to the United States."
Maybe they forgot to tell her that he's there for the G-20 meeting?
|
|
| 340 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 13:31
|
What you can not have G-20 conference via teleconference?
It is little ironic how there was such a up roar when the CEO's of the big 3 car makers showed up in Washington in private jets. But if you are government leader of a bankrupt country it is ok to fly around in private jets all day long whether it be Pelosi, Hastert, or Obama.
|
|
| 341 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 13:35
|
The country is bankrupt? Did I miss that?
The GOP, as usual, is just making things up as they go. $200 million a day? You'd have to be braindead to believe that.
|
|
| 342 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 15:17
|
well i mean if you own the printing press and make the rules it kind makes it hard to go bankrupt. the point is from either side it shows you really care about debt or environment if you are flying around all the time.
|
|
| 343 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 15:20
|
He's going to the G-20 conference in India. Of course he's going to fly there, and because of the conference he's taking a number of cabinet people and staff. The G-20 is a big deal.
This is simply another example of the far right trying to make hay out of what the President does. By lying (or not caring that the extreme numbers they are throwing around to make their point are true or not).
|
|
| 344 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 15:21
|
While I sorta kinda mayyyyybe understand this point, it's fairly obvious that:
1. We're not even talking about drops in a bucket here, that's far too large a scale.
2. Nobody concerned about the environment has ever called for a complete end to travel of any sort for any reason ever, so it's kind of silly to suggest otherwise, and
3. The people making these sorts of claims really don't give a crap about either the environment or the debt either, because they did exactly the same stuff when they were in power, and are only doing this to make a stupid political gotcha point that detracts from real debate.
|
|
| 345 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 15:28
|
Seriously can we not do this by teleconference? I mean does anything actually come out of these meetings? If they are there to talk about world trade, world finances...why would we send the president he is not a expert in these things, wouldn't be more efficient if there finance people met with our finance people?
|
|
| 346 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 17:32
|
No, I don't think you can. Negotiations of all sorts happen at these things.
Meanwhile, here's a contrast between Obama and Mitch McConnell speeches from yesterday. I think we know what the next two years will be like (hint: Just like the health care insurance debates):
|
|
| 347 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 19:22
|
The GOP, as usual, is just making things up as they go. $200 million a day? You'd have to be braindead to believe that.
i can't believe she's still tossing that number around. Drudge and a bunch of other less than credible folks "reported" it, and she went with it.
and now for something completely different - the truth:
White House debunks "wildly inflated" $200M-per-day price tag for Obama's India trip
...on the November 2 edition of his radio show, (Rush) Limbaugh claimed, "$200 million a day this nation will spend on Obama's trip to India."
When Media Matters asked about the report, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich responded, "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated."
|
|
| 348 | Boldwin
ID: 0102036 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 22:35
|
Oh, that sure sounds convincing. Did he say it with a straight face?
|
|
| 349 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 23:23
|
Yes, the presidential trip to India is costing more that the Afghan war.
Bwahahaha. No, I can't do it, sorry.
|
|
| 350 | Boldwin
ID: 0102036 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 00:27
|
So any guess what it costs per day to run 40 ship naval battle group and their aircover?
|
|
| 351 | Boldwin
ID: 0102036 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 00:35
|
Heck, just redeploy the whole Pacific fleet. It's not like there's anything useful for the military to be doing and what better way to tell the incoming tsunami, 'I'm the president and you're not'?
|
|
| 352 | Boldwin
ID: 0102036 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 00:57
|
I should also point out that Indian newspapers introduced the $200 mil pricetag so presumably that's what Obama told the Indian government and the WH non-answer that MM and you guys are settling for is a non-answer. If it's not $200 mil you can give another figure without endangering the entire enterprise. It's not like they were asking for a minute by minute itinerary and travel route.
|
|
| 353 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 01:02
|
how on earth can you "presume that's what Obama told the Indian government" just because a newspaper reported it?!?!?
seriously?!?! that's your standard?? an Indian newspaper reported it, so Obama (or his people) must have told them that?
|
|
| 354 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 01:25
|
Yes, according to all reports a single anonymous source in India floated the $200 million figure. And FOX has run with it.
Sounds legit to me!
|
|
| 355 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 01:25
|
The sad part is that the wacky Right no longer even realizes when it has been trolled.
|
|
| 356 | Boldwin
ID: 25103557 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 08:35
|
This coming from someone whose candidates are all bought by Soros, whose economy gets crashed and raided by Soros, who gets all his fact-checking from George Soros' sites, who hasn't had a thot that Soros didn't pre-approve for a decade and a half. Who has the official job of letting trolls rough me up while he ties my hands...
But I let myself be run by trolls. *shake*
|
|
| 357 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 09:52
|
Stop visiting WND and you won't have that problem.
|
|
| 358 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 09:57
|
Are you still of the belief that FactCheck.org is a Soros site, Baldwin? You've been fisked twice on that charge on this site.
|
|
| 359 | Boldwin
ID: 25103557 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 10:33
|
I was refering to media matters but I guess you are more proud of being bought by Moe Annenberg's mafia money.
|
|
| 360 | Farn @ work
ID: 431043510 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 11:46
|
Boldwin, the actual # is $7 million per day. Let your other friends know.
|
|
| 361 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 12:27
|
So any guess what it costs per day to run 40 ship naval battle group and their aircover?
this, of course, is also incorrect.
On Wednesday, Bachmann repeated the claim on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "Within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day," Bachmann told Cooper. "He's taking 2,000 people with him. He'll be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending. It's a very small example, Anderson."
The only problem: The claims appear to be wrong.
The numbers evidently originate with the Press Trust of India, whose report was linked on the Drudge Report and picked up by Fox News host Glenn Beck. The news agency also wrongly said that the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Palace hotel for Obama's visit and that the U.S. was stationing 34 warships—roughly 10 percent of the naval fleet--off the coast of Mumbai for security reasons
The agency attributed the $200 million figure to an anonymous Indian government official. It didn't attribute the warships claim to any source.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell called the warship claim "absolutely absurd." "That's just comical," he said at Thursday's Pentagon news briefing. "Nothing close to that is being done."
|
|
| 362 | Farn @ work
ID: 431043510 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 12:36
|
But Tree, its a news agency. We should believe it.
Which reminds me, I need to check out a major US news agency... TMZ. See what stories I can catch up on today.
|
|
| 363 | walk
ID: 348442710 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 13:07
|
Rhetorical: Ya think the same network that allowed Bachman to so easily make such bogus claims, will now come back to her and challenge her on the veracity of those claims? The ol liberal media bias coming at ya again.
Whatevs. If this is the type of info and sources that the majority of the American public believes, wants to believe, and trusts, and uses as the basis for making judgments and election decisions, then it just tells me I am an elitist and should move to a different country.
|
|
| 364 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 14:55
|
re 361: these are the things i have problems with:
The White House, meanwhile, issued a blanket statement that the $200 million figure "had no basis in reality" and was "wildly inflated." The press office declined to disclose the trip's actual cost, citing "security concerns."
i am not sure how providing a dollar amount is any kind of security concern. This appears to be another example of how spending money has not concern to people in the government. it is like how for billionaire stopping to pick up $100 bill is not worth their time.
|
|
| 365 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 14:59
|
Let's put it this way -- if I told you I was spending $50 on security for my party tonight, and you wanted to break in, would you be expecting one bouncer, or ten? You'd say "oh, no way he's got ten security guys there if he's only spending $50, so I only have to plan for one guy." (Disclaimer for readers: I'm not actually having a party tonight. Don't be mad that you weren't invited.)
It's not the high-end estimates that are a problem, it's the low-end estimates. Now, there are a lot more variables involved with presidential security, and indicating an actual amount may imply that certain of those steps aren't being taken, which is obviously of benefit to the people that might want to try something.
|
|
| 366 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 15:07
|
The White House never discloses those kinds of costs, for security reasons.
When Bush went to Germany for the G-20 and also took over his entire hotel they didn't disclose costs then.
Even if they did, I doubt they would respond to such a silly tempest in a teapot as this.
|
|
| 367 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 17:07
|
RE 365: yeah i am sure that is it, if the spend a 1 million or 1 billion on security, i doubt anyone is going to say oh man 1 million in security, I think we go him.
Re 366: re-edit of what i wrote before: i am not sure how providing a dollar amount is any kind of security concern. This appears to be another example of how spending money is a not concern to people in the government. it is like how for billionaire stopping to pick up $100 bill is not worth their time.
I should add in their defense they probably do not really know what it is costing them, the bring in cruiser to patrol of the coast line of India is really costing nothing since the ship would just be patrolling some where else.
|
|
| 368 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 17:13
|
"RE 365: yeah i am sure that is it, if the spend a 1 million or 1 billion on security, i doubt anyone is going to say oh man 1 million in security, I think we go him."
I detect a subtle hint of sarcasm in your tone here!
But the answer is yes, that is actually how it works. (Please find me all the other governments of the world, past administrations, etcetera, who routinely reveal this kind of stuff.) Moreover, if they say that they are spending (say) $5 million on security this time, then it's probably quite likely that they'll be spending $5 million on security on the NEXT trip as well, give or take a small amount.
So, congratulations, you're giving potential assassins information to work with for years to come. If the previous administration was asked about this kind of stuff, Rush Limbaugh would be accusing the questioners of treason.
|
|
| 369 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 17:30
|
I can't help but wonder if someone didn't estimate 200,000,000 rupees.
|
|
| 370 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 18:06
|
Because the cost of that security detail is the only thing wrapped up in that figure. The cost of the flight, of the rooms for the entourage, meals, gas, etc. All of that is free and the only thing we spend money on is security.
|
|
| |
| 372 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 19:33
|
"Because the cost of that security detail is the only thing wrapped up in that figure. The cost of the flight, of the rooms for the entourage, meals, gas, etc. All of that is free and the only thing we spend money on is security."
Add it all up and you still probably don't get within an order of magnitude of $200 million.
|
|
| 373 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 19:45
|
DWetzel - I'm so Fu@king mad you didn't invite me to your party tonight!
|
|
| 374 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 20:41
|
They spent one billion on security for the G-something meeting in Toronto.
|
|
| 375 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 20:49
|
So I guess indian newspapers aren't valid sources why? The reporters too brown for you?
|
|
| 376 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 21:02
|
I can't help but wonder if someone didn't estimate 200,000,000 rupees.
that's still 4.5 million dollars. granted, i wouldn't be even able to remotely ballpark what an accurate figure would be, but obviously the 200 million number that Baldwin hung his hat on his dramatically wrong.
|
|
| 377 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 21:35
|
It was $200 million per day mind you.
|
|
| 378 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 22:28
|
375: LOL. Troll better next time. The only way you would be cheering harder if the words "$200 million" and "brown people" were in the same sentence was if you found out the bombs cost $200 million per day.
|
|
| 379 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 01:41
|
Troll better next time.
personally i was impressed with the depths he's willing to sink to in an effort to deny being wrong again, and spreading lies. it takes talent, i have to admit.
|
|
| 380 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 08:03
|
Glenn Beck and Michele Malkin repeated the 200 million a day figure as fact, without question, based on the story in the Indian newspaper. This should disqualify them as journalists in the minds of most people; this should disqualify them as people who are interested in honest analysis of politics in general.
Regardless, Obama allows himself to remain a juicy target by maintaining the status quo, relinquishing an opportunity to show that he is anything other than a proponent of irresponsible government free spending.
He could have directed his staff to make a lean budget for this trip. He could have addressed the nation by saying he wanted to set an example by spending less than Bush and Clinton did on their G 20 excursions, given the state of the economy and deficit. Instead, he allows the rabid punditry to exaggerate the issue by laying the groundwork for out of control government spending. And even though these pundits are happy to distort facts, the basis for their argument is not entirely wrong.
|
|
| 381 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 09:34
|
There is a distinct image problem when you are perceived as the side that does 'fly-in breakfasts' to raise awareness for fuel conservation.
Wise to be able to prove otherwise.
|
|
| 382 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 10:04
|
How dare you question his security budget! You just want the president to get killed!!! Treason!!!!! Throw him in the dungeon!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Hey, I see why you tried this for years, it's fun!)
Anyway, and I don't know why I'm bothering a serious response here, a large part of your problem with the above post is that when you start blindly throwing stupid crap at the "other side" (like, hypothetically, making up $200 million dollars a day from thin air, not bothering to fact check it at all, and then refusing to hear any questioning about it) is that your perception of what the "other side's image" is might, just possibly, be a bit askew from what everyone else in the world thinks their image is.
We already know what you think their image is. They could crap rose-smelling pills that cure cancer and solve the world energy crisis, and you'd still be calling them Trotskyite socialists who are trying to murder your grandmother. I highly doubt that if their flight habits changed that your opinion of them would change one iota. If someone showed you data that showed they flew, say, 90% less than the previous administration, would you care? No.
So, in summary, their flight habits have NOTHING to do with your "image" of them. So stop trying to pretend it does.
|
|
| 383 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 10:28
|
He could have addressed the nation by saying he wanted to set an example by spending less than Bush and Clinton did on their G 20 excursions
out of curiosity, do we know what Bush and Clinton spent?
that being said, i don't believe for a minute that what Obama spent on this trip matters - he could have spent significantly less, but people like Beck and Limbaugh don't care - they are willing to lie about it, and people like Baldwin are willing to accept that lie and help perpetuate it.
they would have just spun it a different way, because that's what they do.
|
|
| 384 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 11:10
|
and then refusing to hear any questioning about it
I'm curious to see any evidence and authoritative comparisons to the norm but assuming that is not forthcoming all we are left with are foreign reports that manage to slip past our native liberal MSM censorship and perceptions earned over the years.
So I guess indian newspapers aren't valid sources why? The reporters too brown for you? - B
personally i was impressed with the depths he's willing to sink to - T
Thank you for admitting how low you think liberal's favorite tactic is. Consider it a teachable moment to so richly deserve the receiving end.
|
|
| 385 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 11:42
|
NOW THEY TELL US: SEC eyes hedge fund backed by Barney Frank pal. “Sussman made headlines last month when the Herald reported that U.S. Rep. Barney Frank flew to the Virgin Islands last Christmas on Sussman’s $25 million Dassault Falcon 2000EX luxury jet along with Sussman’s fiance, U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Frank’s partner James Ready.” - instapundit
|
|
| 386 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 11:54
|
Thank you for admitting how low you think liberal's favorite tactic is. Consider it a teachable moment to so richly deserve the receiving end.
i realize this is a trolling statement.
you have been proven wrong, as have Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest, beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the very least, in this particular issue.
that you're willing to make accusations of race in this issue, just speaks to the depth you've sunk. when people here mockingly call you "Christian", it is a mockery earned.
|
|
| 387 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 11:55
|
I really hate it when politicians and pundits say things like,
"The American people want this.... The American people want that.... The American people think this or that...."
However, I think it's entirely fair to say that this past election, and really the mood of most of the country for the past year or so, shows that Americans want the federal government to be more responsible about spending.
That the conservatives have completely distorted and exaggerated the extent to which Obama and Democrats are responsible is immaterial, since perception trumps reality in this case.
I don't know if it's within Obama's makeup to address federal spending in a way that doesn't give his opponents ammunition to characterize him as a Marxist and committed socialist, because, in many ways, he is a committed socialist, though more in the mode of an LBJ as opposed to a Hugo Chavez.
Unfortunately for Obama, current economic conditions are radically different than LBJ's in the mid 60s, so he must either alter his approach or resign himself to a one-term presidency, possibly even losing out on the 2012 nomination should Hillary decide to run.
|
|
| 388 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 15:43
|
I think that this past election was about reducing the size of the government.
However, we have a factual gap--most of the problem is that of perception. In the last 12 months the federal government has shed a little over 250,000 jobs, but you wouldn't know it listening to those people telling us what they want by this election. In fact, Americans in general (and Tea Partiers in particular) are factually-challenged on some very basic information about the issues which they are so passionately demonstrating about.
For me, this election was a lot more about what happens when a slice of extreme partisans spin bad news out and whip up their base by never letting a moment of bipartisanship or accidental good news capture them.
|
|
| 389 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 16:16
|
The Indian newspaper story will be proven wrong when someone actually provides contrary proof and no sooner.
|
|
| 390 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 16:23
|
According to the Pew Research Center, conservatives as a share of total Independents rose from 29 percent in 2006 to 36 percent in 2010. Gallup finds exactly the same thing: The conservative share rose from 28 percent to 36 percent while moderates declined from 46 percent to 41 percent.
This shift is part of a broader trend: Over the past two decades, moderates have trended down as share of the total electorate while conservatives have gone up. ... Unless the long-term decline of moderates and rise of conservatives is reversed during the next two years, the ideological balance of the electorate in 2012 could look a lot like it did this year. - William Galston, TNR
|
|
| 391 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 16:29
|
True enough. In the meantime we simply have a highly dubious-sounding claim from an unnamed Indian government source disputed by the American presidential administration.
We all know which side those who endeavor to demonize the current president of the united states at everly last opportunity (let's call them "patriots") will take.
|
|
| 392 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 17:09
|
Until "proven" otherwise, an anonymous source in India (how they know the cost of the US president's try I dunno) using a laughably high number is the standard?
The Right will stoop at nothing to paint the President in a bad light, even making themselves look foolish all the while.
|
|
| 393 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 17:44
|
The Indian newspaper story will be proven wrong when someone actually provides contrary proof and no sooner.
You are kidding right? Seriously?
Because a newspaper in a foreign country writes a story about the American President with no proof that makes it fact? How about you show some proof that the $200 million is accurate. Legitimate documents? Quotes attributed to someone who would know? Anything besides a wacky story from a foreign paper with no proof?
I think my joke mention of TMZ yesterday may actually be fitting here...
|
|
| 394 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 18:02
|
The Indian newspaper story will be proven wrong when someone actually provides contrary proof and no sooner.
it's been proven wrong. not just by other *NAMED* sources, but by common sense. ONLY AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT WOULD BELIEVE THE SECURITY DETAIL FOR OBAMA FOR THIS TRIP COSTS MORE THAN THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
|
|
| 395 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 18:05
|
Moreso because Glenn Beck and Matt Drudge repeated an unsourced and highly questionable Indian news story.
|
|
| 396 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 19:03
|
Yeah, who are you going to believe: An unnamed source in India, or the Secret Service? For the Far Right, it is a real tossup when believing the first might have bad political consequences for a Democratic President.
The Pentagon weighs in on the absurd Far Right meme that about 12% of its fleet will be working on Presidential detail...
|
|
| 397 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 20:14
|
conservatives as a share of total Independents rose from 29 percent in 2006 to 36 percent in 2010
You'll probably find that most of those independents have more in common with a moderate Democrat like Perm Dude than the hate-spewing radical right represented by Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck. How many times have we seen those who consider themselves conservative characterized as RINOs, CINOs or some other restrictive term that eliminates them from the 'club?' Even George W Bush is no longer embraced as a conservative by "you guys" but I'd wager 90% of that 36%, if asked, would consider Bush a conservative. Same with McCain, Romney and Giuliani.
So, do you want to get excited because a broader swath of Americans consider themselves conservative, or do you want to continue to have stricter and stricter qualifications and tell them they aren't?
|
|
| 398 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 01:51
|
"while moderates declined"
|
|
| 399 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 10:11
|
I think you're missing the point. Those independents who went to identifying themselves as conservatives from moderates don't necessarily fall in line with your standard for what constitutes a conservative.
|
|
| |
| 401 | Boldwin
ID: 411044716 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 17:45
|
most of those independents have more in common with a moderate Democrat like Perm Dude
PD hasn't been within arms reach of Reagan democrat or moderate for a long long time. Those independents the study identified are the second coming of the Reagan democrat.
|
|
| 402 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 17:50
|
Ha. I'm not certain that you have a firm grasp of what ideals moderates hold in order to determine whether someone is one or not. Given your propensity to publicly sneer at even the concept of a moderate in this country, I'm certain the nuances of the entire middle of the political spectrum is only something you would read about. And then, only to differentiate yourself from.
So, put down your Foders for Moderate Politics and stop pretending you know than a local, OK?
|
|
| 403 | Boldwin
ID: 561026718 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 19:26
|
Do you think Obama is moderate?
|
|
| 404 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 19:45
|
Overall: Yes. He's certainly not progressive. A progressive would have pulled out of the War on Terror, nominated far more liberal judges to SCOTUS, proposed a single payer health care system instead of the private insurance-based one we have, ended DADT through Executive Order (without a military review), etc etc.
Don't get me wrong: He shares many of the goals of the liberals as well. But look at education, as an example: His liberal streak believes there to be a role for the federal government in schools (certainly, larger than I believe). But his moderate side, in every educational speech, took parents to task to believing that it is only the school's job to education their children. In other words, preaching personal responsibility (hardly a strong suit of liberals).
I believe that if Obama were as extreme as his hardest critics say, his policy ideas, temperament, and legislative accomplishments would be much different that the actual record we see.a
Of course, as a pro-life moderate he and I share a vastly different view of abortion (and he and I part ways on the Farm Bill, continued non-transparency about torture, and a few other key issues). But he's squarely in the moderate tent, IMO.
|
|
| 405 | Boldwin
ID: 561026718 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 20:11
|
Like I said, you'd need two tanks of gas to get to moderate.
|
|
| 406 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 20:12
|
Like I said, I don't think you can even see moderate from your nest.
|
|
| 407 | Boldwin
ID: 561026718 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 02:53
|
I'm all for moderation in personal habits but it's a sign of indecisiveness when it comes to the big questions.
When you come to important forks in the road, moderation amounts to clueless coin-flipping.
Should I do heroin? "Aaaa-iii-dunno...I guess I'll do a little"
Should we have deathcamps/concentration camps in our culture? "Every now and then".
Should I be free or someone elses' puppet? "It's ok as long as I don't notice."
Should I be faithful to my wife or cheat?
When it comes to good and bad, effective or dysfunctional, choosing team shoulder-shrug and toss a coin is no virtue.
Marxism or personal freedom? Quicksand or solid footing? Oh, a little from column A, a little from column B, Alex.
|
|
| |
| 409 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 09:47
|
You don't have a clue what being a moderate means because you don't have a clue about what the political spectrum is. Your post indicates that you think the only choices are between good and evil, which explains why the majority of your posts are ill-suited for a political message board as they are not really political thoughts at all.
|
|
| 410 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 09:56
|
Re: 407 -- your (implied) answers to your first and third questions are mutually contradictory. Unless you think other people should be YOUR puppet, but not the other way around.
In which case, you don't really believe in freedom at all (but I think we all already knew that).
|
|
| 411 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 10:07
|
I'm not even certain that the belief that "moderation" = "indecisiveness" is even Christian, for that matter. In many ways, Jesus commands us to be moderate in many things. Surely drinking wine isn't bad, but being a drunk is. Surely asking citizens to bear the cost of their defense is not, but overcharging them, or building and maintaining an overbearing security apparatus is not.
Holding out "moderation" in politics as being "indecisive" gives rise to the belief that stubbornness and inflexibility are virtues of some sort. And that a political system based on the belief that compromise and moderation, conducted by people engaged in the system in good faith are necessary to the system's survival in the long term, is flat out wrong.
|
|
| 412 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 10:43
|
Boldwin was thoroughly fisked in the last three posts. Chances that he realizes it and takes away a nugget of knowledge... none.
|
|
| |
| 414 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 12:55
|
There are quite a few issues where there is no compromise is there not? Some issues require binary answers.
|
|
| 415 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 13:04
|
Such as?
|
|
| 416 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 13:12
|
I agree with that. But how you treat members of the other party is not an evil/heavenly decision.
|
|
| 417 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 13:37
|
Chances that he realizes it and takes away a nugget of knowledge... none.
truer words have ever been spoken. the man is repeatedly proven wrong, and rarely accepts it (although, to his credit, there was a point where he acknowledged "ok, maybe Palin really isn't Palin in a skirt", although i think he's since reversed course on that again..)
|
|
| 418 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 18:55
|
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), recently tapped to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, believes that despite the GOP's monumental electoral gains last week, the party left some vital Senate seats on the playing field thanks primarily to the work of Sarah Palin.
This from the Shelby County Reporter over the weekend:
"The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
He said Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, "They didn't do well at all."
O'Donnell cost a GOP senate seat. Angle probably. Buck is very debatable. But here's the most ridiculous statement of all from Jim DeMint:
"The Tea Party is responsible for just about every Republican elected around the country."
link
|
|
| 419 | Boldwin
ID: 291035821 Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 22:44
|
“In the midst of a resounding national rebuke at all levels of government, the Democrats have been taking some solace in having held the Senate. But to put the Republicans’ Senate gains this week into perspective, Republicans won an even higher percentage of Senate races than House races (they won 65 percent of the 37 Senate races, versus approximately 56 percent of the 435 House races). And, counting Lisa Murkowski as still being a Republican (a spokesman for her campaign says the Alaskan would caucus with the GOP if she beats Joe Miller in their still-undecided race), there have been only two elections since 1950 in which Republicans have gained more Senate seats than the six they gained in 2010.” ----- This kinda undermines claims that the Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate. - Glenn Reynolds, instapundit Undeniably amazing for a fledgling movement of outsiders and neophytes. This was decidedly not a victory delivered from the Mitch McConnell side of the Republican party. No one sent them to bring back more pork or to play nice with the big spenders.
|
|
| 420 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 00:22
|
Kinda undermines? It doesn't even address it.
Senate would be in GOP hands if they hadn't put up the Tea Party clowns in DE or NV. Put another way: The Tea Partiers helped get Harry Reid re-elected. For that, they should be ashamed. If that was even an emotion they allow themselves anymore.
Any analysis which says otherwise is using statistics to lie to you. The Senate should have been Republican right now, if it wasn't for the Tea Party. They will never get another perfect storm as they had with this election.
Mark my words: This is the high water mark for the Tea Party.
|
|
| 421 | Boldwin
ID: 291035821 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 06:20
|
Yeah, I marked your words back when they were only astroturf to be easily dismissed.
|
|
| 422 | Boldwin
ID: 291035821 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 06:31
|
And you are the one who disingenuously told us the only successful ploy was to become the party of phonies like McCain and Powell.
If those were the only republican choices the independents and conservatives would have stayed home with nowhere to register their disapproval of digging a deeper spending hole, disapproval of Obamacare, disapproval of a bigger public sector, disapproval of the Obama war on the employer class.
|
|
| 423 | Frick
ID: 21016718 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 08:52
|
Unless the Tea Party makes some pretty big changes to try and attract moderate voters, I would argue their high water mark was before the election.
|
|
| 424 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 09:24
|
#421: When, exactly?
#422: #420 is the latest on the same theme. Short-term midterm gains aside, I don't believe that the GOP can continue to use anger and lies as a long (or even medium-term) solution to its lack of actual policy. Being against everything Obama is not a policy, and the electorate simply won't continue to get fooled by evil.
|
|
| 425 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 09:32
|
I have a similar argument with progressives all the time on the Left, which is one reason why I think there is very little actual difference between the far right and far left. Both are about process rather than policy, and their process is pretty much exactly the same: "Expel non-orthodox members from our group! When we are politically pure people will flock to us!"
|
|
| 426 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 09:51
|
a fledgling movement of outsiders and neophytes
It's hard to take charges of disingenousness seriously when George Soros is accused of buying elections for Democrats, but the Koch brothers' billions to support tea party candidates falls into the outsider and neophyte file.
The only difference is Soros is more honest about his agenda.
|
|
| 427 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 10:03
|
And far more transparent.
|
|
| 428 | Boldwin
ID: 311018917 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 19:06
|
OMG, Soros designed the Tides Foundation to hide liberal contributors and denied he funded media matters until he was exposed. This guy is about transparency?
|
|
| 429 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 19:44
|
Except Soros didn't design the Tides Foundation, and your claim Soros was exposed as funding Media Matters is also suspect.
Regardless, your claim is that the tea party is a fledgling movement of outsiders and neophytes, which, given the insider media support from Rupert Murdoch, and the non-neophyte status of Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers decades-long political involvements, is a claim easily discarded.
That's not to say that there isn't some grass roots elements that have taken root as it pertains to some tea party philosophy, only that it isn't and never has been immune from political machinery and financial chicanery.
|
|
| 430 | Boldwin
ID: 311018917 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 20:24
|
The candidates were unpolished neophytes who lost a few battles and won the war spectacularly. The movement was unpolished, uncoordinated, tactically naive, fledgeling...precious little machinery and chicanery. Zero astroturf factor.
But how it baffles you. How much time you spend looking at the wrong aspects or imaginary aspects. It's like magic.
|
|
| 431 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 20:28
|
But how it baffles you.
I'm not baffled. I fully expected a backlash and a strong shift away from the progressive victories of '06 and '08. But if you feel good making things up, knock yourself out.
|
|
| 432 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 20:38
|
C'mon, PV. This was a complete and utter victory, except where the Democrats committed crimes to steal an election or two. Anyone who thinks otherwise, or believes that millions of people voted for reasons other than what the Tea Party mouthpiece says, is wrong. So wrong they need to be publicly mocked.
|
|
| 433 | Boldwin
ID: 311018917 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 20:59
|
Anyone who thinks the Tea Party was a net negative for Republicans or that the Colin Powell wing of that party is their best bet, as I have read here, is the political forum equivalent of the JV running back mistakenly headed for the wrong goal-line.
|
|
| 434 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 21:16
|
Anyone who thinks the Tea Party was a net negative for Republicans or that the Colin Powell wing of that party is their best bet, as I have read here
Well, I quoted Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), recently tapped to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who said,
"Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
He said Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, "They didn't do well at all."
I'm not familiar with Mr. Bachus. That may be because he's more concerned with actually doing some legislating rather than getting face time on Fox News.
|
|
| 435 | Boldwin
ID: 371011923 Wed, Nov 10, 2010, 00:12
|
More likely he's in the mold of a Trent Lott, old bull, go along to get along, pork pulling big spender that the Tea Party was sent to fix.
|
|
| 436 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Nov 10, 2010, 08:50
|
the Tea Party was sent to fix.
I'm all for that. However, here in my state, tea party favorite and in-coming senator Mike Lee proposes what I fear are unrealistic positions based on a warped idealism.
Mike Lee, the Republican candidate for United States Senate in Utah, has caused a late-race stir by suggesting that the federal government may need an immediate 40 percent cut in spending to get the budget deficit under control.
Mr. Lee has suggested that Social Security and the military be exempt from cuts, which takes about $1.45 trillion off the table.
Mr. Lee and other Republicans are also calling for a full extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which would further add to the deficit.
If you're not willing to cut military spending, if you're not willing to address Social Security, and if you're adamant about continued tax cuts, it's apparent you're not going to fix anything.
One more thing about this tea party darling, who consistently promotes himself as a Constitutional expert and state's rights proponent:
When Mike Lee was the general counsel for Governor Jon Huntsman, he was against Energy Solutions and for states rights. He argued passionately AGAINST the importation of waste, saying he would “kill it, then dance on the grave” of that waste.
However, when he left that position, he took insider knowledge, turned it around and used it to argue against Utah. Governor Huntsman said of the betrayal that he was ‘highly disappointed’ that Lee was working with EnergySolutions. In spite of that, the state refused to back down on the Italian waste.”
One candidate, Mike Lee, argues to force the state to take the waste and the other candidate, Tim Bridgewater, argues that Utah, as a sovereign state, should be able to decide something of this magnitude – the choice was obvious for EnergySolutions
Lee is more than happy to abandon principle when it comes to pleasing a former corporate employer and big time political contributor.
Final note: Bennett was sacked in the Republican convention, not by Utah voters. It's generally agreed that Bennett would have won handily had he and Lee(or Bridgewater) met in a primary.
|
|
| 437 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Wed, Nov 10, 2010, 09:08
|
More likely he's in the mold...
is there anything you DON'T have an excuse for? This Republican is a RINO, that Republican is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This Democrat stole the election, that Democrat...err...stole the election.
you are so myopic, that you will explain away anything, missing the more glaring points because they don't agree with your agenda.
|
|
| 438 | Boldwin
ID: 2710491010 Wed, Nov 10, 2010, 11:49
|
Well he's concerned about socialists in congress so he can't be all bad. 8>
|
|
| |
| 440 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 08:28
|
I never thought the traditional light bulb needed defending.
Why is it that the only time a liberal can see defending the individual's right to choose is when there's babies to be killed?
|
|
| 441 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 09:23
|
Well Barton's better than Shimkus:
God promised Noah, see...
...so no worries on the silly climate change thingy!
|
|
| 442 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 11:15
|
#440: I'm sorry--were you under the impression I was both liberal and pro-choice? Better clean off that brush *before* you go painting with broad strokes. The world is far more complicated that the far right websites will have you believe.
Meanwhile--a breath of fresh air on the Right.
Money quote: [G]iven a choice between an ideologically pure program that never is enacted and a problematic one that gets the job done, albeit imperfectly, I’ll take real deficit reduction over theoretical deficit reduction every time.
Exactly. The nature of the moderate is to make forward progress rather than keep taking body blows while hoping for the singular knockout blow.
|
|
| 443 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 11:48
|
Made any "forward progress" protecting those babes lately?
|
|
| 444 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:32
|
#442, that same opener to the sentence: "[G]iven a choice between an ideologically pure program that never is enacted and a problematic one that gets the job done, albeit imperfectly," could be applied to healthcare reform. Covering uninsured, covering pre-existing conditions, and preventing folks from getting insured pulled from under them when they get gravely sick are big improvements over what we had before...even if it's imperfect.
That kind of 80-20 thinking, for deficit reduction and healthcare, and all policies, should be more prevalent.
|
|
| 445 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:40
|
In your cynicism you are acting very un-Christian, Boldwin. Among other things, discounting prayer? Seriously? If you had any shame anymore I'd appeal to it. Please stop presenting yourself as any sort of Christian on these boards. We know you by your love. And you are showing none here.
You've actually provided a crystal clear example of what Williamson is talking about. By continuing to hold out for a complete Roe v Wade overturning instead of making steps toward reducing unwanted pregnancies, you have doomed millions of babies to the abortionists. Don't dodge--face it. Even, in your dreams of having Roe v Wade overturned, this would not stop abortions in the United States, but merely throw the idea of abortion back to the States.
Meanwhile, your political masters discount the belief that sex ed (including contraception access and usage information) has *any* power to prevent teenage pregnancies (you know--the ones that often get aborted). Statistics continue to point to a large percentage of those obtaining abortions got pregnant after using no contraception, or using contraception incorrectly.
Life is precious, but not precious enough to provide teenagers with knowledge and condoms to prevent it from occurring, it seems.
|
|
| 446 | walk
ID: 517172117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:52
|
P'awned (again).
|
|
| 447 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 18:02
|
PD
If you actually made abortion illegal and socially unacceptable instead of making heroes out of abortionists and actually quit electing their enablers...
...you might actually make progress with your putative pro-life agenda and your putative religious position.
|
|
| 448 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 18:16
|
Sorry--you have no standing to say anything on the issue of my pro-life position. I'm working toward actions that reduce actual abortions--here in the real world. While you hurl insults in lieu of policy ideas.
|
|
| 449 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 18:17
|
Because, clearly, that worked wonderfully before -- it was completely eliminated until those damn hippies showed up! Nobody ever did them!
Wait, what?
Oh, never mind.
Other things that needed to be kept "socially unacceptable" by those wanting to control others: women voting, black people wanting to not be slaves, children being poor choices of labor.
Yay freedom for all*!
|
|
| 450 | Tree
ID: 1410371019 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 22:31
|
If you actually made abortion illegal and socially unacceptable instead of making heroes out of abortionists and actually quit electing their enablers...
never mind the fact that the only people who make heroes out of abortionists are those who are violently anti-abortion (i personally wouldn't be able to name one doctor who performs abortions until Christians started killing them), just because something is illegal and socially unacceptable doesn't mean it won't exist.
there is a nearly endless list of illegal and socially unacceptable things that continue to go on. all making abortion illegal will do is force it entire an entirely unregulated enviroment, putting mother and child in even more danger.
but PD hit the nail on the head vis a vis sex education and contraception, and you conveniently missed it.
|
|
| 451 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 22:40
|
1] Jesus didn't run sex ed classes, he ran morality classes and made loyalty to God's way one of the two greatest commandments.
2] It is not the Christian commission to teach that morality is the 'old and busted' and that respect for transgressiveness is the 'new hotness'.
|
|
| 452 | Tree
ID: 1410371019 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 00:28
|
1] Jesus didn't run sex ed classes, he ran morality classes and made loyalty to God's way one of the two greatest commandments.
at this point, you spouting off about what Jesus did and did not do has so little value, it's not even measurable.
i suppose, if you want to pick and choose which of Jesus' teachings you want to follow and preach, and which ones you want to toss in the waste can, well that is your business.
but you simply don't have an capital here when it comes to the words of Jesus.
2] It is not the Christian commission to teach that morality is the 'old and busted' and that respect for transgressiveness is the 'new hotne
it's also not a Christian world.
Practice your beliefs in your home, with your family; in your church, with your fellow believers. practice them in the park over a nice meal, with your friends who also believe.
you are free to choose your religion and practice it wherever and how ever you'd like - but when you force it on others, your rights in that area end.
and PD's point about birth control still goes over your head.
|
|
| 453 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 03:38
|
Tree
I won't try and shame you because that isn't possible but PD isn't so far gone that he couldn't return to healthy community standards.
|
|
| 454 | Tree
ID: 1410371019 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 07:55
|
I won't try and shame you because that isn't possible but PD isn't so far gone that he couldn't return to healthy community standards.
good. because it's not about me, as i've hardly made false proclamations about my faith, nor have i proposed using the Christian bible (or Jewish bible, or Muslim bible or any religious bible) to lay down the law of a multi-denominational nation.
i would love to see a reduction in abortions, but i want those that are done to be done in as safe an environment as possible.
birth control is a key to reducing abortions, not thumping a bible.
|
|
| 455 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 08:18
|
Abortion advocates will stop at nothing to prevent inconvenient pregnancies.
Except self-control and morality. Let's not even mention those
|
|
| 456 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 08:44
|
Uh, no, those get mentioned too. All the time. Only the delusional or the wicked would say otherwise. Which are you?
Going to be a pleasure knowing you're burning in hell for 8948947893274 counts of false witness (among other things).
|
|
| 457 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 09:17
|
Abortion advocates will stop at nothing to prevent inconvenient pregnancies.
Putting aside the point that nearly every elective abortion in this country is considered "inconvenient" by someone, if this is one of those "punish the sinners" thingys then you will have to cease the death grip on your tin pro-life crown.
Life is far too precious to be using it as some kind of punishing stick against those with no "self control and morality." We need to stop abortions. If we can't do that, we need to slow the rate down. [Here's where you and I part ways, strongly]. Even if it means that it appears we are rewarding those without "self-control and morality."
Statistics show that most people obtaining abortions say that they attempted to use contraception during the act which resulted in the pregnancy (making sense--unwanted pregnancies are, for the most part, preventable). Access to contraception and education is a key in reducing abortions. And it would be in Baldwin's mind as well if he weren't so concerned about those with low morality or self control benefiting.
You want to teach self-control? Teach people how and when to use contraception. Meanwhile, it is clear that moral traditionalism fails to prevent premarital sex and pregnancy. As health policy it has been absolutely disastrous.
|
|
| 458 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 09:46
|
Are you really of a belief that there is a shortage of birth control products and information?
|
|
| 459 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 09:56
|
Abortion advocates will stop at nothing to prevent inconvenient pregnancies.
i know of no one who is an abortion advocate. not one person who says "hey! get knocked up so you can get that abortion!"
Except self-control and morality. Let's not even mention those
already did. but you can't regulate, force, or impose those things on anyone.
ultimately, if someone is going to have sex outside of a long-term monogamous relationship, whether they are 14 or 114, i'd prefer they use protection for a multitude of reasons.
Are you really of a belief that there is a shortage of birth control products and information?
you left out the word availability.
|
|
| 460 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:01
|
but you can't regulate, force, or impose those things on anyone
Societal approbation worked very effectvely for many millenia until you made immorality approved behavior.
|
|
| 461 | Frick
ID: 21016718 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:22
|
Are you arguing that all societies for the last several millenia thought pre-marital sex was immoral?
|
|
| 462 | walk
ID: 517172117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:33
|
Morality as defined by who(m)?
|
|
| 463 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:40
|
Societal approbation worked very effectvely for many millenia until you made immorality approved behavior.
and what societal approbation is that? enslaving blacks? not letting women vote? imprisoning the japanese? forcing native americans to become christians.
keep going. i'm curious.
|
|
| 464 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:43
|
#458: Yes. Surveys of women who have had abortions show that a large percentage of them were using the birth control incorrectly or sporadically. Over half of all abortions performed in the United States are for women in their 20s (partially as a result of people getting married later and later), and 54% of all women getting abortions report using some form of contraception during the month they got pregnant.
Let's say you are right, and that an increase in birth control and education results in a minuscule 1% decline in abortions. That means since 1973 that 500,000 babies have been aborted as a result of the policy of withholding both.
Are these particular babies unworthy of life? Is hoping that people will just learn how to use contraception on their own worth even one of those babies lives?
You yourself admit to having difficulty in exerting the self control your religion requires you to make with regard to your political involvement. Yet you seem to have no problem allowing an increase in babies being aborted because other people "lack self-control."
|
|
| |
| 466 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:49
|
I don't have any idea what you mean by "cultural success." Frankly, the only measure I'm worried about is the abortion rate. And I'd trade "cultural success" for getting that abortion rate as close to zero as possible. And so would you, if you were any kind of Christian.
|
|
| |
| 468 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 10:57
|
You are part of the movement which sneers at morality and cheers immorality. No way to even slow abortions from that position.
|
|
| 469 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 11:00
|
Encouraging as much homosexality as possible isn't part of your anti-abortion strategy, is it?
|
|
| 470 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 11:40
|
LOL. That you see no distinction between "encourage as much homosexuality as possible" and "refuse to use government as a personal tool to shove one's personal ideals down the throats of others" is kinda telling both about your cult delusions and a complete lack of willingness to attempt to discuss things intelligently.
But that's OK, keep strawmanning and making stuff up and I'm sure it will win you plenty of respect and agreement. (eye roll)
|
|
| 472 | Tosh Leader
ID: 057721710 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 12:21
|
Boldwin - I'm sure you are well aware of the 'Nuremberg Files', courtesy of christiangallery.com. Two of my good friends are on that hit list.
Please explain to me how Christianity and assassinations are appropriately linked.
|
|
| 473 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 12:24
|
Since I believe homosexuality (as apposed to homosexual acts) to be innate and genetically-based, no. Can't see how I could, in fact. One thing about the gays: they aren't causing abortions.
Sneering? Really--look in the mirror.
You know, we don't actually have to guess as to whether abortion rates drop if we weren't holding up people who have sex as only worthy of our shameful tut-tutting. Our high abortion rates are a direct result of lack of education about contraception.
We've now had decades of moralists telling us that teaching people how to be responsible about sex will result in more pregnancies and abortions. And they are wrong. But, unwilling to bend, they are willing to let babies be aborted before they moderate their position one little bit.
On the issue of abortion, the moral absolutists feel comfortable calling others out for "immorality" while turning a blind eye to the high rate of abortions in this country as a result of their non-policy.
|
|
| 475 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 15:06
|
Tosh
Some people who believe they are christian are not willing to wait for God to avenge the blood of the innocent.
That job is one that belongs to him, not to christians however.
As someone yourself, Tosh, who believes that 'kingdom come' is the same as never, you should be able to see how some people lose their patience with God's tolerance with ongoing mass murder of helpless innocents.
|
|
| 476 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 15:42
|
you should be able to see how some people lose their patience with God's tolerance with ongoing mass murder of helpless innocents.
nice. excusing murder now.
|
|
| 477 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 16:01
|
We can all see how people might lose patience. People are people, after all.
My problem is that the social conservatives are selectively understandable when it comes to self-control.
|
|
| 478 | Tosh Leader
ID: 057721710 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 17:30
|
Ignoring the fact that Boldwin seems to approve of killing and assassinations to meet his end goals ...
Boldwin does not know me. Maybe I'm Don Alden James. Maybe I'm Yogi Bear. Maybe I'm the son of Erich Frost. But Boldwin thinking that he knows my beliefs on the afterlife and/or abortion ... that's just plain offensive.
I learned something the other day. I learned the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don’t like strangers going up to their door and annoying them. – Bruce Clark
|
|
| 479 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 18:01
|
"But Boldwin thinking that he knows my beliefs on the afterlife and/or abortion ... that's just plain offensive."
Get used to it. He also claims to know your beliefs on the economy, on healthcare... I could go on. It's called a strawman, and apparently he has the Wizard of Oz on auto-play at his house.
|
|
| 480 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 18:58
|
Tosh
It's a real safe bet about most people. I know. I poll the public weekly. I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong and you know it.
|
|
| 481 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:03
|
If there ever was an entire thread that should be nuked, this is the one...
|
|
| 482 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:03
|
And how does...
That job [vengence] is one that belongs to him [God], not to christians however - B
...translate to, "Ignoring the fact that Boldwin seems to approve of killing and assassinations to meet his end goals - Tosh...
Now that is some offensive 180 degree twisting of my position.
|
|
| 483 | Tree
ID: 1410371019 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:32
|
actually, it's the you should be able to see how some people lose their patience with God's tolerance with ongoing mass murder of helpless innocents
that translates into Boldwin seems to approve of killing and assassinations to meet his end goals, at least for me...
|
|
| 484 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:44
|
You'll help me convince them to wait confidently for God to solve the problem then?
Didn't think so.
|
|
| 485 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:54
|
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
|
|
| 486 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 19:57
|
In fact I think you've got a reality show there.
|
|
| 487 | Tosh Leader
ID: 057721710 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 20:08
|
Boldwin - I noted that two of my friends are on that hit list, and asked for an appropriate link between Christianity and assassination. Rather than condemn the creators of that list, you brushed it off with a 'some people are in a rush'. And in 484, it certainly seems you are in no rush to stop them. Can that not be seen as tacit approval of the list and it's goals?
Tree [483] - You nailed it. Thanks.
|
|
| 488 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 20:20
|
it certainly seems you are in no rush to stop them. - Tosh
What do you expect me to do to stop them other than point them to the passages in their very own Bible prohibiting their project? What better tool to use?
You expect me to assassinate them perhaps?
|
|
| 489 | Tosh Leader
ID: 057721710 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 21:02
|
B - Nah. No need. But be sure to let me know when you start using that Bible to stop them. Thanks.
Getting back on track ... Joe Barton is the congressman that has already tried once to reverse the Magnuson Amendment in the Puget Sound. The amendment, passed as part of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, prevents oil companies from expanding their Puget Sound operations beyond what's needed to serve the growing energy demands of Washington residents.
Barton's bill would have eliminated any restriction on oil tanker traffic in the Sound, opening it up to unlimited traffic and the corresponding risk of catastrophic spills. link
I've already had oil wash onto my yard from a small spill. I'm in no rush to see Joe Barton start sending more tankers into Tacoma.
|
|
| 490 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 21:36
|
Hey Tosh, my brother is an accomplished underwater photographer and even has a photo and info book detailing the Edmonds underwater park in Puget Sound.
Critters, Creatures and Kelp
|
|
| |
| 492 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 23:08
|
I've felt this for some time - if a strong, conservative country invaded the US while Pres. Obama was in power, you know, promising to lower taxes and rid our military of gays, blah, blah, blah, the Republicans would go all Vischy in a heartbeat.
Maybe Israel...
|
|
| 493 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 02:04
|
I thot the red states just did.
|
|
| 494 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 12:07
|
Yep, treason is in the air, alright.
|
|
| 495 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 20:04
|
If Bill Ayers is happy you can be sure of it.
|
|
| 496 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 17:23
|
Not a mandate.
Only 17 percent say the election results were a mandate for the GOP, with seven in ten saying that the midterms were more a rejection of the Democrats' policies.
|
|
| |
| 498 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 14:55
|
To be fair, for some of them, that is a pretty valid fear.
|
|
| 499 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 15:03
|
True. But it shouldn't be their focus. Right now, they are not meeting with him because the last time they did it, they tried to diminish him by ambushing him and they looked petty and stupid.
Two years of the GOP avoiding meeting with Obama isn't going to play well with an electorate which has given the GOP a short leash to begin with.
|
|
| 500 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 09:34
|
Incoming Senators, not content with winning their elections, try to impose their will on the Senate early.
Larrison rightly slaps them around. The START Treaty should be ratified. Now.
|
|
| 501 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 12:06
|
More on the START treaty. Like Josh Marshall, I hadn't realized that the old treaty had expired already, and that we have no way to verify or inspect Russia's nuclear weaponry and haven't for nearly a year.
Trust Putin? Then you should cheer on efforts to stall this new treaty.
|
|
| |
| 503 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 19:35
|
You misspelled "convicted" in that link there.
Still, this is really small potatoes next to random ethics violations, and/or part of the vast left-wing Texas conspiracy, -- and buying elections with dirty money (and a decade of fraudulent redistricting that came as a result) is really no big deal.
|
|
| 504 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 19:48
|
ooops--right. Was thinking about some of the arguments during the trial and got indicted stuck in my head.
This genuinely doesn't surprise me that he was busted. But since he's out of office, and from Texas to boot, there is virtually no political fallout from this.
|
|
| |
| 506 | Boldwin
ID: 3710122522 Thu, Nov 25, 2010, 23:12
|
SPLC violates Godwin's Rule. Brackets christians with nazis.
|
|
| 507 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 01:05
|
well, you make the bed you lay in:
In May, (Peter Sprigg, the FRC's senior researcher) told me that an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell would lead to more American servicemen receiving unwelcome same-sex fellatio in their sleep, part of a long line of reasoning from Sprigg suggesting that gay men are more likely to be sex offenders than anyone else.
....
"I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior." "So we should outlaw gay behavior?" (MSNBC host Chris) Matthews asked. "Yes," Sprigg replied.
....
those are some damning statements.
also, here's something that you omitted from your post, which is very important.
As (SPLC Research Director Heidi) Beirich told me, there is no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC now. Still, she said that the hate group designation doesn't mean the SPLC thinks everyone who supports the FRC "has a full understanding of what they're up to." Many who support the FRC may do so because of the group's very public ties to evangelical Christianity, and Beirich stressed that the SPLC designation has nothing to do with an "attack on the churchly world."
|
|
| 508 | Boldwin
ID: 311028269 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 10:34
|
"has nothing to do with an "attack on the churchly world."
My patootie it doesn't.
|
|
| 509 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 11:50
|
I see nothing about "nazi" or "Hitler" in that story (#506). What's the rule that is violated by falsely claiming the other side called you a nazi?
|
|
| 510 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 11:51
|
"has nothing to do with an "attack on the churchly world."
My patootie it doesn't.
i realize dishonest people don't trust the words of others.
me, on the other hand, will take them at their word. just because you think something is a certain way Baldwin, doesn't mean it is.
|
|
| 511 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 12:08
|
Correctly identifying those evangelical Christians who are filled with hatred is no more an indictment of Christianity than correctly identifying those Muslims who are filled with hatred is an indictment of Islam.
|
|
| 512 | Boldwin
ID: 311028269 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 12:39
|
What an easy time they will have doing it too, when imputing hatred is such a cheap and easy substitute for reason and common sense.
You've bought into a world of inverted morality where every bad thing must be respected and every good thing trashed
|
|
| 513 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 12:43
|
Care to take on their charges directly rather than vent the fact that you are aggrieved that a "Christian" organization was called out?
|
|
| 514 | Boldwin
ID: 311028269 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 13:12
|
PD
Care to explain why you called me a liar for correctly pointing out that the Family Research Council had been thrown into the 'hate-group' bin along with the KKK, nazis etc.?
The day is upon us when PD picks sides between loyal catholics in full agreement with the FRC, and the hate-speakers at the SPLC. What will you do when the SPLC sends the child protective services after their kids?
|
|
| 515 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 13:17
|
You said they violated Godwin's Law. They did not.
And projecting the FRC's problems onto their accusers isn't going to fly here.
You still refuse to address the actual complaints. Until you do, you've got nothing substantial to say on the topic.
|
|
| 516 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 15:09
|
"What an easy time they will have doing it too, when imputing hatred is such a cheap and easy substitute for reason and common sense."
So why do you do it all the damn time? I guess it IS a cheap and easy substitute.
Something about glass houses and casting stones, I guess.
|
|
| 517 | Boldwin
ID: 311028269 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 15:16
|
The SPLC violates Godwin's Law everytime they expand the meaning of hate-group to include another conservative cause. Because they all get bracketed in with nazis. If a discussion which invokes the memory of nazis instantly becomes irrelevant then we could by that forum-honored measuring stick ignore the SPLC.
If lobbying on behalf of the lives of the defenseless and organizing protests to prevent holocausts reminds the SPLC of nazis its because they are on the side of today's nazis. They are wolves in sheep's clothing.
|
|
| 518 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 20:18
|
They expand their list to include people who spew hate speech, regardless of their place on the political spectrum.
I know you want to give them a pass because they are Christians. But those are the very kind of people who should be much more careful.
They still did not violate Godwin's Law.
|
|
| 519 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620 Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 21:13
|
Give them a pass? I love those people. I don't understand why everyone doesn't.
|
|
| 520 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 10:01
|
The SPLC violates Godwin's Law everytime they expand the meaning of hate-group to include another conservative cause.
is it a "conservative cause" to imprison people for being homosexuals?
Give them a pass? I love those people. I don't understand why everyone doesn't.
well, because "everyone" are not intolerant bigots who want to imprison homosexuals and who imply that homosexuals soldiers will RAPE their fellow soldiers.
considering your history of loving liars, frauds, and criminals, and giving them free passes because they are either conservatives or Christians, it comes as no shock you love groups who want to imprison homosexuals.
|
|
| |
| 522 | Tree
ID: 4310512710 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 11:51
|
did you read your own link from 506?
i'm guessing not.
|
|
| 523 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 12:43
|
Well I've never seen them make a legislative push in that direction and I receive their updates. I am not surprised if their leaders and members were displeased to see sodomy laws overturned but I don't believe their legislators are introducing that legislation. Find that.
Understand, I don't vote or pray with these people. They just e-mail me the news that another death camp for babies has gone out of business and we all pop open a Pepsi and celebrate.
|
|
| 524 | Boldwin
ID: 2210132620 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 12:53
|
Btw, don't waste your time. If the SPLC or TPM could have found it they would have trumpeted it.
|
|
| 525 | Tree
ID: 2910452712 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 13:46
|
the information came from the link YOU posted...if you'd like to refute your own postings, well, it wouldnt be the first time i am sure...
|
|
| 526 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 16:57
|
Epic fail.
|
|
| 527 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Sat, Nov 27, 2010, 21:49
|
"I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior." "So we should outlaw gay behavior?" Matthews asked. "Yes," Sprigg replied.
Many would interpret this quote as endorsing criminal sanctions, i.e. prosecuting homosexual behavior. Prosecuting crimes often means attempting to find parties guilty with the intent of imprisoning them.
|
|
| 528 | Boldwin
ID: 4010132819 Sun, Nov 28, 2010, 20:32
|
Show me where the organization actually made a push for re-criminalizing sodomy. I stipulated that at least one of their leaders would have been happy if they had never been de-criminalized but that is not an agenda item.
|
|
| 529 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Sun, Nov 28, 2010, 21:34
|
Show me where the organization actually made a push for re-criminalizing sodomy. I stipulated that at least one of their leaders would have been happy if they had never been de-criminalized but that is not an agenda item.
you're missing the point.
it's irrelevant whether or not imprisoning homosexuals is an "official" policy of the organization. the fact that their leaders call for it, however, is.
that's why the SPLC put them on the list - because of the homophobic words of the FRC leadership.
|
|
| 530 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 28, 2010, 22:29
|
It is pretty clear why they were put on the list.
|
|
| |
| 532 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 11:47
|
Time to temporarily suspend the rules, make everything a majority vote until the next Congress. Pass about 150 important things and call it the "Not so lame duck session".
|
|
| 533 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 13:40
|
you're missing the point.
it's irrelevant whether or not imprisoning homosexuals is an "official" policy of the organization. the fact that their leaders call for it, however, is.
that's why the SPLC put them on the list - because of the homophobic words of the FRC leadership.
You are making my point.
You and the SPLC are bracketing anyone who believes and accepts the Bible, in with nazis. Mighty dangerous and extreme considering that HLS is using the SPLC as their 'enemies of the state' list.
Anyone who believes the Bible, it's now or never time to recognize the threat to their safety.
|
|
| 534 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:15
|
Anyone who believes the Bible, it's now or never time to recognize the threat to their safety.
Rather it should read, anyone who uses the Bible to justify hatred and discrimination will be exposed as such. It's quite similar, though fortunately not as prevalant, to the way some Muslims use the Koran as justification for their hatreds and despicable behavior.
|
|
| 535 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:15
|
No, they aren't. They are targeting the leaders of the FRC for what they have said. It is simply martyrdom-envy which makes you think the designation has anything to do with "anyone who believes and accepts the Bible."
|
|
| 536 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:34
|
I mean, everyone who agrees with God's morality, is a step away from being labeled an enemy of the state. And losing their kids for starters.
|
|
| 537 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 14:49
|
Is that what the SPLC is? The state? I think you're overstating it a wee much.
[waiting for "you're naive" and/or "you just wait!" rebuttals]
|
|
| 538 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 17:01
|
You and the SPLC are bracketing anyone who believes and accepts the Bible, in with nazis.
absolutely not. and i'll bracket anyone who believes THAT, as being completely ignorant to reality, and as being the kind of person that posts a link, then refutes that link because they couldn't be bothered to actually read it.
i mean, if you're gonna throw out "brackets", why shouldn't the rest of us?
|
|
| 539 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 20:22
|
Everyone who accepts Tree as an expert on what the Bible says, raise your hand.
|
|
| 540 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 20:33
|
Everyone who accepts Tree as an expert on what the Bible says, raise your hand.
i never claimed to be an expert on the bible, so i'm not sure where that random attack comes from.
but what i did claim, and what i'll stand by, is that i never bracket(ed) anyone who believes and accepts the Bible, in with nazis.
that's a bold faced lie coming from you, someone who has more than once praised liars and felons who did their mis-deeds in the name of a Conservative cause or Christianity, and someone who protects Christian terrorists because of their religious beliefs.
i do believe homophobes are on par with Nazis. whether they read the Bible or not, isn't relevant in the least bit.
|
|
| 541 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 20:41
|
Tree: 'read Bible, accept moral lesson of Soddom and Gomorrah destruction, you might as well be a nazi'.
That's the pressure Christians [and Jews for that matter] face if they dare believe.
Are you brave enuff to stand up to this brave new world?
|
|
| 542 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 20:48
|
Are you keeping kosher? Or is your selected interpretation of the Bible so good you can pick and choose which parts result in utter destruction and which parts are worthy of a shrug?
Your Biblical interpretations are not as good or complete as you think they are...
|
|
| 543 | Boldwin
ID: 261139112 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 21:04
|
Your Biblical interpretations are not as good or complete as you think they are...
Your Bart Simpson rationalizations aren't fooling anyone but the ones making them.
|
|
| 544 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 22:32
|
Your Bart Simpson rationalizations aren't fooling anyone but the ones making them.
you're the one who has shown an extremely discomforting method of picking and choosing what is ok and what is not ok, according to God and the bible. you may very well be the least Christian of any Christian I've ever known.
and before you go challenging me again, i'll bring back the same argument you never seem to respond to - how many times have YOU been in a synagogue in the last year? i feel comfortable in saying i've been to church many, many, many more times than you've been to synagogue, and i also feel comfortable in saying i've participated in Christian prayers (such as graces before and after meals), than you have Jewish prayers.
Tree: 'read Bible, accept moral lesson of Soddom and Gomorrah destruction, you might as well be a nazi'.
That's the pressure Christians [and Jews for that matter] face if they dare believe.
again, fiction. i realize you see no problem in lies and fiction in attempts to prove a point. that doesn't make it right.
Are you brave enuff to stand up to this brave new world?
you mean, to radical psuedo-Christians like your self who find murder acceptable as long as it's in the name of Christ?
that's not new. that's as old as the hills, and you're damned straight i'm ready to stand up to those nut cases.
|
|
| 545 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 23:08
|
Your Bart Simpson rationalizations aren't fooling anyone but the ones making them.
I genuinely don't know what this means.
But it proves, again, that arguing Biblical literalism with someone who doesn't realize that all Christian doctrine subjects the Bible to selective interpretation and enforcement isn't really fair. They just don't realize their self-imposed limitations in the debate.
|
|
| 546 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 10:17
|
Everyone who accepts Boldwin as an expert on Biblical interpretation, raise your hand.
Boldwin, put your hand down.
Now there's the same number of hands up as those that think Tree's an expert.
Now that we have that little Internet pissing contest out of the way, how about we leave that out of conversations for a while?
Bigots are bigots. Trying to say "but this bunch of bigots is OK because they believe what I believe" just means that, well, you're a bigot too. Now, if you want to say "damn right I'm a bigot, and I'm proud of it", go ahead -- just don't deny it, or expect rational people to suddenly agree with you.
|
|
| |
| |
| 549 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 00:59
|
while DADT was repealed, sadly, the Dream Act, was not passed.
Senate Republicans on Saturday doomed an effort that would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a path to legal status if they enrolled in college or joined the military.
....
"The echo of this vote will be loud and long," said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill., a key House sponsor of the bill. "We are at the tipping point that will define the political alignment of the Republican and Democratic parties with Latino voters for a generation
|
|
| 550 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 08:15
|
No truly valid reason for defeating the DREAM Act.
NYT article on the subject
...His administration has pursued a two-sided policy, coupling tough enforcement — producing a record number of about 390,000 deportations this year...
So a record nr of deportations (which by definition would prove a stricter enforcement policy than previously experienced), and the wingnuts STILL think Pres Obama is 'soft' on the subject.
To the moron who penned the following comment below the article:
With so many Americans out of work it hurts to see the Democrats focusing on ways to change illegal immigrants into legal immigrants to flood the non-existing job market with educated illegal-now-legal immigrants. *sigh* When are Democrats going to focus on Americans? When will the US government, in general, remember the economy drives the country?
These people are already here! Providing a means for citizenship, does not alter the body count. By making them legal, the same corporations who employ them now but 'under the table' and thus at less than legal wages; would be forced to provide minimum wage payment AND withhold taxes, SS, etc etc etc. This WOULD improve the economy which as you say 'drives the country'. Of course, it requires a certain intellectual level to realize the truth. (A level which could best be demonstrated, by watching something other than Foxspews)
|
|
| 551 | Boldwin
ID: 5011331914 Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 15:53
|
There is still 3/4 of Mexico in line to cross over. An eventuality which gives you warm tingles up and down your leg for some unhealthy reason. Having already lost two careers in my immediate family to this illegal tide, I take it personally.
All those poor americans that dems claim to represent have good reason to take it personally as well.
|
|
| 552 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 16:34
|
There is still 3/4 of Mexico in line to cross over. An eventuality which gives you warm tingles up and down your leg for some unhealthy reason. Having already lost two careers in my immediate family to this illegal tide, I take it personally.
what jobs did your immediate family lose that were taken by illegal immigration?
and honestly, having the opinion that the remainder of mexico will cross into this country because the DREAM Act will pass is surpassed in absurdity that is your "warm tingles" comment.
|
|
| 553 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 15:38
|
The Direction of the new GOP?
With Republican leaders anxious to set an austere tone for their ascendance into the House majority this week, the lavish fundraiser scheduled for Tuesday night at a trendy Washington hotel to benefit a dozen GOP freshmen is not exactly the populist image leaders are anxious to project.
House Speaker-elect John Boehner, whose name was featured on the invitation, is nonetheless skipping the event at the W Hotel, where lobbyists, political action committee managers and others paying the $2,500 ticket price will be treated to a performance by country music star LeAnn Rimes (a $50,000 package includes a block of eight tickets and a “VIP suite” at the W). The office of incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor, another featured invitee, was noncommittal Monday night when asked whether he’d attend.
|
|
| 554 | Boldwin
ID: 27049317 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 18:27
|
That would amount to the liquor bill in Pelosi's jet for a month. Which we pay.
|
|
| 555 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 19:21
|
Another lie. Jesus wept.
|
|
| 556 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 20:35
|
re: 554 - here's a little truth about Nancy Pelosi's jet...
additionally, even if your lies about Pelosi were actually the truth, does that really excuse the lavish over-spending from the link in 553?
|
|
| 557 | Boldwin
ID: 27049317 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 20:41
|
Pelosi's jet costs the taxpayer bigtime and was certainly used extravagantly. The fundraiser costs the taxpayer zero afaik. OMG a political fundraiser with a $2500 ticket. You have GOT to be kidding me if you think this is a scandal of any kind.
|
|
| 558 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 22:14
|
as usual, something goes over your head.
and, you continue to perpetuate lies and falsehoods.
|
|
| 559 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 06:43
|
Paul Ryan: Abject fraud in a Ronald Reagan hairdo."We're gonna be reducing all domestic discretionary spending. I can't tell you by what amount and which program, but all of it is going to be going down, and the aggregate amount will be back to 2008 levels before the spending binge occurred." There's one congressman banking heavily on the stupidity of tea party voters.
|
|
| |
| 561 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 16:11
|
Don't blame the right for making politics nasty. There's the worst example of politically motivated selective prosecution. I hope the new House is playing hardball.
|
|
| 562 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 16:17
|
Since when is "breaking the law" the same as "playing politics." DeLay broke the law multiple times.
I know, I know. Republican politicians don't break the law--they are all victims.
|
|
| 563 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:17
|
Clinton and Rangel are laughing it up today despite the fact they'd rather break the law if it cost them more money than being honest, just for the thrill of getting away with it.
Selective prosecution is not justice.
|
|
| 564 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:23
|
So DeLay should have gotten off?
Selectivity seems to be a virtue for you here.
|
|
| 565 | Razor
ID: 471172122 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:26
|
No point in arguing. You either have a moral compass or you don't.
|
|
| 566 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 17:33
|
And where was yours when Clinton was sitting on an illegal mainframe computer [and office to match] full of FBI files on his opponents, renting out the WH and commerce dept, raising campaign funds with a Chinese army of illegal fundraisers who all fled to China rather than testify, budhist temples full of vow of poverty monks and bulging pockets full of campaign contributions...but OMG Delay dealt with K-street lobbyists. It is to laff.
|
|
| 567 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 18:03
|
The more you post, the more you advertise the virtues of selective morality.
Good luck. I'm sure God will let you slide when you point out Clinton's sins.
|
|
| 568 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 18:52
|
Baldwin is obviously a subscriber to the "Two wrongs make a right" school of thinking.
|
|
| 569 | Boldwin
ID: 57011115 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 19:44
|
You guys obviously enjoyed the 'Heads I win/Tails you lose' coin in the CrackerJack box altogether too much.
|
|
| |
| |
| 572 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Tue, Jan 11, 2011, 23:59
|
You guys obviously enjoyed the 'Heads I win/Tails you lose' coin in the CrackerJack box altogether too much.
i have honestly never encountered anyone who used more red herrings and other similar fallacies in their debates than you do.
|
|
| 573 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 00:05
|
oh, and of course, True Patriots can always buy their "Liberal Hunting License"...
yep, those are bullet holes.
|
|
| 574 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 00:08
|
No they're not silly, they're just air holes so Luke Skywalker can breathe.
|
|
| 575 | Tree
ID: 60121615 Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 18:03
|
and not one peep from any of the Conservatives about the changing of the guard in the RNC. guess they're too busy defending violent rhetoric and the right to own assault rifles.
|
|
| 576 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 19:55
|
and not one peep from any of the liberals about the changing of the guard in the RNC. guess they're too busy accusing conservatives of defending violent rhetoric and the right to own assault rifles.
|
|
| 577 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 20:47
|
Touche.
I, for one, am sad to see Steele go, only because he was a doufus who provided lots of comic relief.
He leaves the RNS deeply in debt, beholden to a loudmouth minority with no intention of learning to govern, and only united in doing whatever they can to oppose Obama in everything.
|
|
| 578 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622 Sun, Jan 16, 2011, 23:25
|
I, for one, am sad to see Steele go
So you just know this benefits the RNC.
|
|
| 579 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 10:46
|
Absolutely. Steele was a joke.
Same thing about the nomination--I would be sad if Palin didn't get it.
|
|
| |
| 581 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 12:42
|
Meh, child labor laws are a bad example to use (or perhaps a really good example for shock value), but quite obviously he wasn't saying child labor = good or anything of that sort.
|
|
| 582 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 12:54
|
Rand Paul has said the same things. Essentially, they believe (wrongly) that only the states have the authority to make these kinds of laws because the Constitution doesn't expressly allow Congress to do so (forgetting, of course, about the Commerce Clause).
They certainly are *not* saying that child labor should be permitted.
|
|
| |
| 584 | Boldwin
ID: 240201622 Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 18:25
|
Yeah, I can remember when I used to have LGF in my favorites. WTF happened to him?
|
|
| |
| 586 | Mith
ID: 4010542612 Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 07:44
|
WTF happened to him?
Absolutely nothing happened to him. In that post he displays exactly the same penchant for exposing false rabid anti-opposition propaganda that made him famous in 2004. It's nothing short of intellectually dishonest to praise him for exposing Dan Rather and criticize him for exposing that ridiculous claim
|
|
| 587 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 22:33
|
Shameless.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| 595 | Boldwin
ID: 20412822 Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 03:52
|
No child left behind is a creepy slogan coming from the proabortion side. Wouldn't want to miss any you could have aborted.
|
|
| 596 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 09:43
|
Yes, Bush should have been advised better on that title.
|
|
| 598 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817 Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 10:08
|
a rose, is a rose, is a rose...
and
rape, is rape.
For the GOP to even intend to redefine it, is to move FAR too close toward a fascist state.
|
|
| 599 | Boldwin
ID: 5408309 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:39
|
a rose, is a rose, is a rose...
Unless you are at some PC college where some harpy is trying to screw up your whole life because you stared at her a couple seconds too long and she didn't consent to it.
|
|
| 600 | Razor
ID: 160302211 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 11:26
|
When you are mocking and trivializing rape, it's probably time to take a break from this board for a while.
|
|
| 601 | Boldwin
ID: 5408309 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 11:55
|
I'm not the one who is redefining it all the time.
|
|
| 602 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 14:32
|
Unless you are at some PC college where some harpy is trying to screw up your whole life because you stared at her a couple seconds too long and she didn't consent to it.
i'm sure if your daughter or wife were a rape victim, you wouldn't be mocking either of them as a "harpy", and referring to the violent act of forced non-consensual intercourse, fellatio, or sodomy against them as being "stared at (for) a couple seconds too long."
are you even AWARE of the things you say? because if you're not, your God sure is.
|
|
| 603 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 14:38
|
#601 is straight out of the "They Do It Too! school of "ethics."
|
|
| 604 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 15:08
|
601......ummmm it is your much vaunted GOP, trying to redefine rape.
And since there is no legal definition for "forced rape" vs "rape" (in that all rape is assumed forced, else it would have been consensual).......
so yes B, it IS you (metaphorically) redefining it.
|
|
| |
| |
| 607 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 13:35
|
House Republicans move to slash domestic programs
among the proposals: The Department of Homeland Security would face a budget freeze instead of the 3 percent increase proposed by Obama...
Republicans would scale back Obama's proposed 4 percent, $23 billion increase for the Pentagon. Instead, the military budget would grow by just $10 billion...
can you imagine if Democrats had made those proposals? i'm sure they'd be accused of treason and be called anti-American by Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the loud Right.
|
|
| 608 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:06
|
True, dat.
"The spending limits will restore sanity to a broken budget process": The problem isn't the process. It is the amounts.
|
|
| 609 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:22
|
Kudos to Rand Paul, someone who appears will walk the walk not just talk the talk.
A Republican senator, a tea partier no less, is calling for the United States to loosen its connections with Israel. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told ABC News this week that if it were up to him, the US would stop sending foreign aid to what most Republicans consider to be the nation's most important ally anywhere.
This won't sit well with mainstream Republicans or the neocon faction of the Tea Party, but the principle is closer to what the Tea Party originally stood for - limited spending/limited government.
|
|
| 610 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:27
|
His libertarian streak is showing!
|
|
| 611 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 14:38
|
I applaud Rand Paul. At this point I'm not sure how many self-proclaimed Tea Partiers even know what the initial ideals were. They come across as simply anti-Obama.
|
|
| 612 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 15:00
|
That was the Tea Party's initial ideals, Frick. They protested government spending that saved this country from economic peril when Obama did it, but not when Bush did. The Taxed Enough Already Party's taxes have gone down under Obama's watch but they abhor him for allegedly raising taxes anyway. There aren't any smart Tea Partiers because it was not founded with any sort of logic or reason behind it, just angry opposition to Obama.
|
|
| 613 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 16:34
|
Rand Paul doesn't have a libertarian streak. He is libertarian down to the marrow and thru and thru. He isn't strictly speaking 'Tea Party' in fact. Hardline libertarian just happens to be a reasonable fit with the strict government limiting element of the Tea Party. It is unlikely that he fits in well with the social aspect [a matter for debate] or the strong national defense aspect of the Tea Party.
When it comes to his stance regarding the Fed, he is a magnificent fit for the Tea Party.
|
|
| 614 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 16:37
|
Razor
You can trap yourself with your own 'smartness'. The Tea Party will make do with the common sense you left behind.
|
|
| 615 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 16:41
|
There aren't any smart Tea Partiers because it was not founded with any sort of logic or reason behind it, just angry opposition to Obama.
So, out of a million Tea Partiers .... none are smart. Not even three or four of them. None of them. Zero smart ones. Even though some of them have a PhD, or a CPA. You expect a reasonable person to believe that? It sounds like your statement is the "one without any sort of logic or reason behind it, just angry opposition to Tea Partiers." Why should readers believe your next gem, when this one can so easily be proven false.
|
|
| 617 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 17:09
|
It is unlikely that he fits in well with the social aspect [a matter for debate] or the strong national defense aspect of the Tea Party.
The social and strong national defense aspects were not initially elements of the Tea Party.
Originally, and deliberately,
divisive social issues were not elements of Tea Party philosophy.
That strong national defense tie to the initial Tea Party philosophy is even further from the original intent because of the horrendous amounts of money spent, much of it having nothing to do wit national defense.
The hard right co-opted the Tea Party when they saw the publicity and popularity it received, but Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint and others are just bandwagon reactionaries taking advantage of the latest fad.
Rand Paul, however, is the real deal.
|
|
| 618 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 19:24
|
Even though some of them have a PhD
I could have sworn that here on these boards you once poo-pooed PhD's, in fact, I think it was right after you learned about the one biliruben has. Maybe he didn't get it from one of the more "pro-American" parts of the country :)
|
|
| 619 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 21:54
|
Good point. Change PhD to college graduate. I knew walk had one, not sure about biliruben. That would explain a lot of his viewpoints, though.
|
|
| 620 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 22:18
|
[Rand Paul] is libertarian down to the marrow and thru and thru.
Not according to actual libertarians. But what would they know?
|
|
| 621 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 22:31
|
Freshman GOP member didn't realize her health insurance was taxpayer funded
Buerkle, who voted to repeal the health care reform act, was twice asked about the health insurance she receives as a government employee. At first she said she couldn’t understand why people were so interested in her health insurance, and that taxpayers didn’t pay anything for it. She later corrected herself after being handed a note from a staffer. Like most employees, she pays for a portion of her insurance and her employer, the government, pays the rest, she said.
That's just too dumb to snark at.
|
|
| 622 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 00:05
|
The hard right co-opted the Tea Party
Where in the ouchie gouchie do you get these ideas?
The Tea Party is the hard right. It is the Ronald Reagan party. It is Michele Bachman and Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin. Granted many Tea Partiers have made a strategic decision to stop the mad overspending first and foremost and then tackle the social issues.
|
|
| 623 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 00:09
|
MITH
Rand Paul is loathe to explain just how far libertarian he would be willing to go, for pragmatic political reasons. I am sure doctrinaire libertarians would love to hear him advocate limited government to the point of anarchy.
|
|
| 624 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 00:36
|
Where in the ouchie gouchie do you get these ideas?
From the Tea Party founders. Had you read the article, you could have educated yourself.
Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin are Tea Party? They're columnists who haven't and couldn't ever win an election because they are so unlikeable....by design.
|
|
| 625 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 01:22
|
There are many leaders of the Tea Party. To the extent they can be called leaders when the movement is so amorphous. There is a healthy debate among them whether social issues should be front and center along with fighting to shrink government. There is no way any of them speak for a large enuff segment of the party to make that ruling all by himself.
|
|
| |
| 627 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 01:49
|
I didn't just learn the definition today. Yes there is a world of difference between doctrinaire libertarian theory and electable positions. Nevertheless Rand Paul and Ron Paul are UNQUESTIONABLY the most libertarian candidates ever elected to the senate and house respectively. You can't even name the runnerup.
|
|
| 628 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 02:30
|
Ron Paul might fit the bill. Rand does not.
I have no idea whether he's the closest thing in the history of the senate. He clearly shares some of their sensibilities, but he's a watered down version at best, a far cry from down to the marrow and thru and thru.
|
|
| 629 | Boldwin
ID: 34121415 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 06:24
|
Just because he doesn't put forward a bill to cut the budget to zero doesn't mean he wouldn't if he thot he could get it passed. Politics is the art of the possible. Even for libertarian politicians.
Don't forget the far left dogs Obama relentlessly for not being 'progressive' enuff, tho he's actually as radical as any of them. He's gotta operate with at least some pragmatism unlike the chorus singing behind him.
|
|
| 630 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 06:52
|
Actual card-carrying libertarians find the distinctions substantive enough that they are offended when he associate with them and their ideology.Libertarians want a complete repeal of the PATRIOT Act, closure of Guantanamo Bay, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rand Paul has stated that he wants to continue military detentions at Guantanamo Bay, a retroactive official declaration of war by Congress, and has denied that he seeks to overturn the PATRIOT Act.
In further contrast, libertarians want to provide a mechanism by which non-traditional couples can receive equal protection under the law. Rand Paul has voiced his support of the discriminatory “one man, one woman” definition of marriage and his opposition to any other civil contract option.
In 2009, social conservatives in Kentucky outlawed adoption by anyone not living in a traditional, legally-recognized marriage – a concept so extreme that even family counselor and conservative talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has opposed it. The Libertarian Party stood in strong opposition to this legislation. Rand Paul has acknowledged that he agrees with his party in this, squarely placing himself at odds with the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and libertarians nationwide, who have a strong record of fighting these inequities.
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky has primarily avoided being involved in the race for US Senate to date, other than to defend our party and the philosophy upon which it is built, and we intend to continue avoiding involvement. Rand Paul’s statements regarding all forms of discrimination are not consistent with, nor do they reflect the views of, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky. Rand Paul does not speak for us or for our party. We condemn all bigotry based on any and all factors. Yes, he has notable libertarian traits, moreso than any senator I can name without digging. Why isn't that enough? What purpose does it serve you to falsely make Rand Paul a down to the marrow and thru and thru libertarian when he very clearly falls fairly well short of that.
Such unnecessary bombast just makes you look foolish and exposes your disregard for fact. Do you really not understand that? And before you dismiss me for nitpicking, it's not like I'm hounding you for passively calling the guy a libertarian. You went well out of your way to argue that he is a perfect specimen of the philosophy. Do you want a politics forum where such sloppy exaggerations fly around unchallenegd?
|
|
| 631 | sarge33rd
ID: 45072817 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 09:27
|
Libertarians want a complete repeal of the PATRIOT Act, closure of Guantanamo Bay, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
...libertarians want to provide a mechanism by which non-traditional couples can receive equal protection under the law.
In 2009, social conservatives in Kentucky outlawed adoption by anyone not living in a traditional, legally-recognized marriage – a concept so extreme that even family counselor and conservative talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has opposed it. The Libertarian Party stood in strong opposition to this legislation.
Oddly enough, I find myself in complete agreement with those positions. I wonder, does that make me a libertarian vs the "America hating, self-loathing liberal, masonic-nonmember" I normally get called by our resident rightwing fringe?
|
|
| 632 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 11:08
|
The Tea Party is the hard right. It is the Ronald Reagan party. It is Michele Bachman and Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin. Granted many Tea Partiers have made a strategic decision to stop the mad overspending first and foremost and then tackle the social issues. - #622
There are many leaders of the Tea Party. To the extent they can be called leaders when the movement is so amorphous. There is a healthy debate among them whether social issues should be front and center along with fighting to shrink government. - #625
According to the official
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals.....
As an organization we do not take stances on social issues
Any one who thinks Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin are non-partisan and don't take stances on social issues and has the arrogance to ask Where in the ouchie gouchie do you get these ideas? is simply too convinced of their own faux expertise to intelligently engage.
I will grant that what the Tea Party has become does resemble Boldwin's rather across the board definition. Again, I submit that the hard right has co-opted and corrupted the original philosophy of the Tea Party intentions, which was an inclusion of independents and Democrats who shared concerns of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. That would describe Blue Dog Democrats more than Ann Coulter, who, in over 20 years of columns, has never once protested the bloated overspending of the Defense Department. To even mention cutting the Defense budget usually brings claims of treason from Coulter.
It will be interesting to see if Coulter, Malkin or Bachmann concur with Rand Paul that "we can't just borrow from our kids' future and give it to countries even if they are our friends."
|
|
| 633 | Boldwin
ID: 26143713 Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 14:43
|
There are hundreds of Tea Party organizations and none of them speaks for the others.
|
|
| |
| |
| 636 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:37
|
Agreed.
Mike Pence isn't my Representative, but I still feel ashamed to be from the same state based on his new proposed legislation, and the reasoning behind it.
|
|
| 637 | Boldwin
ID: 38112911 Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:49
|
I'm curious whether you guys think that abortion has anything in common with 'reproductive rights' in China? Just goes to show you how misleading pro-abortion language is.
|
|
| 638 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 13:50
|
And how many people try to sway opinion through misleading language. On both sides.
|
|
| |
| 640 | J-Bar
ID: 0147918 Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 19:47
|
Immediate resignation w/o reservation (an action more Left leaning pols should try) is appropriate for most fact based scandals. I find it hilarious that email communication was posted as 'Sex Scandal' by a Clinton apologist.
|
|
| 641 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 09, 2011, 19:52
|
You don't think it was? A sex scandal, that is?
|
|
| 642 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 00:03
|
Allen West Unwittingly Endorses Stimulus-Funded Government Industries To ‘Turn Around’ The Economy WEST: Just had a great opportunity sitting over and talking to the Ft. Lauderdale Airport director. They’re going to bring in that new southern runway. You think about the jobs that will create. You think about the increased revenues. I mean, $2.7 billion a year. That’s what that airport brings in. And when you bring it in together with the world’s largest cruise port? Now we’re talkin’ about how we’re going to turn around South Florida! The interesting thing about West’s praise for the Ft. Lauderdale Airport and the neighboring Port Everglades seaport is that both of them actually are run by the government. The airport “is a service of the Broward County Board of County Commissioners” — which also happens to run the Port Everglades seaport.
Additionally, both government-run institutions are also major recipients of federal stimulus dollars. The airport received $5.6 million dollars through the Recovery Act, which helped renovate the area around several concourses. “This was needed and I don’t know how soon it would have gotten done because of the runway and other necessary work,” said Aviation Director Kent George. And Port Everglades received $190,000 as part of a Department of Homeland Security grant included in the Recovery Act. Whoops!
|
|
| 643 | J-Bar
ID: 53151923 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 00:52
|
The only thing I have seen reported is email communication which would not constitute "sex" in my view.
|
|
| 644 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 01:13
|
So a married man sending shirtless flirting lying messages to someone else isn't a "sex scandal"? Are you sure you aren't unnecessarily restricting the term? After all, when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" he (rightfully) took a lot of heat for pretending that "sex" = "intercourse."
|
|
| 646 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 01:31
|
Steve Benen:A couple of years ago, Republican Rep. Christopher Lee of New York, wrote a piece warning constituents about Internet safety. "[R]esponding to what may seem like a friendly e-mail or an appealing marketing offer can have serious consequences," he said. "Private information and images can so easily be transmitted to friends and strangers alike."
The conservative lawmaker really should have taken his own cautionary words more seriously. It's a minor sex scandal. It fits the bill for a combination of reasons: the guy is married, "seedy" would be a very friendly way to describe Craigslist personal ads, he lied about his identity, his pathetic excuse that his account had been hacked (the photo was taken with his blackberry and emailed with his blackberry) and the photo itself is scandalous.
Admittedly it's not on the level of getting caught trolling for sex in an airport men's room stall (like Republican Senator Larry Craig, who didn't resign) or getting caught patronizing prostitutes (like former Dem governor Eliot Spitzer, who did resign) even well after the fact (like Republican Senator David Vitter, who didn't resign) or even just getting caught cheating on your wife (like Dem governor Jim McGreevey, who did resign and Republican Governor Mark Sanford, who didn't resign and Republican governor Jim Gibbons, who didn't resign).
Immediate resignation w/o reservation (an action more Left leaning pols should try)
I assume that's sarcasm. The Clinton scandal was a long time ago - around the same time as Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani were cheating on their wives (while also not resigning from their elected positions).
|
|
| 647 | J-Bar
ID: 361531012 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 13:53
|
Ha ha ha, so the Clinton scandal was all about cheating on Hillary. Not only is it not on the level of the Craig and Spitzer actions it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same conversation. But I am glad that it gave the left something to show how truly hypocritical they are. Oh and by the way I agree that the action was not appropriate but usually sex has something to do with a physical interaction or can we agree it should have at the very least 'R' rated language or photos.
|
|
| 648 | biliruben
ID: 171361013 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 14:36
|
He should resign merely because he is clearly far to stupid for the job.
What a complete and total moron. He makes me and fellow graduates of Buffalo public schools look bad.
|
|
| 649 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 14:37
|
but usually sex has something to do with a physical interaction
not in the least. sex can include physical interaction, but it certainly isn't necessary.
|
|
| 650 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 00:34
|
I don't understand post 647 at all.
Ha ha ha, so the Clinton scandal was all about cheating on Hillary. Not only is it not on the level of the Craig and Spitzer actions it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same conversation.
Well, no, I don't think I've suggested those things. The "conversation" is about "sex scandals" - whether the Lee case qualifies as one, whether his resignation should serve as an example to "Left leaning pols", whether that notion is abjectly ignorant BS given that in recent years Republicans actually resign far less frequently over such incidents despite getting involved in them at least as often if not far more frequently.
When you refer to "the Clinton scandal" there are other elements such as perjury involved in that case. So, no, the Clinton scandal wasn't "all about cheating" but for the purpose of this discussion, I'm really just referring to the sex scandal part of it, as I assumed you were. But that doesn't matter. None of these scandals are merely about infidelity or even any criminal activity relevent to that topic. Getting caught up in these scandals is unbefitting the public office they hold. In my opinion, the higher the office, the greater the responsibility to uphold that standard but there's also a lot more invested in a sitting President than in a legislator or state governor.
And for the record, I didn't rank these scandals, except to say that Lee's case wasn't on the level of most of the others.
My point in response regarding CLinton was that it's rather silly of you to characterize "Left leaning pols" by what Bill Clinton in 1998, when the rather full history since then displays quite the opposite trend. No, of course I wouldn't say he doesn't belong in the conversation, only that if you're going to cherrypick that nuget of history, everything that has transpired under that topic since is also relevent.
But I am glad that it gave the left something to show how truly hypocritical they are.
You'll have to spell out this hypocrisy on the part of "the left" for me. The only blatant hypocrisy I see is from the guy who, in spite of an considerable number of cases in recent history, thinks Lee's resignation should serve as an example for "Left leaning pols" specifically.
|
|
| 651 | Boldwin
ID: 171501015 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 04:02
|
given that in recent years Republicans actually resign far less frequently over such incidents despite getting involved in them at least as often if not far more frequently. - MITH
Look in the mirror and repeat that.
Clinton's excuse was 'because I can'. The libertine party by and large respected him for it to be honest and didn't even think he should have felt shame and resigned over it. In fact they didn't even ask him to and would be still re-electing him to this day if it were allowed.
You think Barney Frank is a hero for not resigning in shame. Your party doesn't even consider immorality a sin, only hypocrisy.
The pressure to resign over shameful behavior is all on the Republicans because Dems rarely have their feet held to the fire by their side over impropriety. This is a ratchet that favors Dems, far from what you portrayed it.
|
|
| 652 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 04:28
|
Facts betray you. Recent years show exactly what I wrote.
|
|
| 653 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 06:11
|
NewsCorp: Shamed former Congressman Christopher Lee was ordered by John Boehner to curtail his randy DC antics after word got around that the married lawmaker was dating a young salesclerk from a mall across the river, The Post has learned.
The warning came last year during a pre-election powwow called by then-House Minority Leader Boehner, who had grown worried that the Buffalo-area Republican, along with a band of other party-prowling pols, would embarrass the GOP, sources said.
Soon after the Boehner sitdown, Lee was told he was getting a big "promotion" -- a seat on the influential Ways and Means Committee.
In return, he was told, he "better clean up his act," a source said.
But within days of the Republicans gaining control of the House, Lee was trolling for women on Craigslist.
|
|
| |
| 655 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 06:28
|
The limitations of the libertarians' political alignment with conservatives:
This is why Boldy is so eager to make a poser like Rand into the read deal, down to the marrow and thru and thru.
|
|
| 656 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Sat, Feb 12, 2011, 07:41
|
Whoops! GOP's House Abortion Bill Undermined by Their Own Mandate (courtesy of the Tea Party) Requiring Citation of Constitutional Authority for Every Proposed Bill Anthony Weiner challenged HR 358 (The Protect Life Act) on a point of order because the authors failed to cite the appropriate constitutional authority to permit its introduction. Then Frank Pallone chimes in with the answer: Republicans can't cite Constitutional reason for the bill because there IS no constitutional authority.
The end is particularly delicious, where Joe Barton cites the section of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass legislation. I'm certain that's what the Tea Party had in mind when they pushed for that constitutional authority rule, aren't you?
|
|
| 657 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Sat, Feb 12, 2011, 08:02
|
Heather Mac Donald @ Secular Right (who is quickly becoming my favorite new voice on the right)I am by no means an unequivocal fan of revolutions; I do not believe that human rights are universal and timeless, rather than the product of evolving and contingent political beliefs. But I could better stomach the right-wing media’s effort to discredit the Egyptian revolution and to portray it as a failure of Obama’s diplomacy if they had not given such unthinking jingoistic support to Bush’s Freedom Agenda, if Sean Hannity’s theme song was not “Let Freedom Ring,” if they didn’t claim a divine mandate to lead the world towards American-style democracy.
|
|
| |
| 659 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 14:07
|
Lawmaker condemns question about shooting Obama
Rep. Paul Broun, a conservative who has harshly criticized the president, confirmed Friday that he was hosting an event in Oglethorpe County, Ga., on Tuesday when a man asked, "Who's going to shoot Obama?"
Broun didn't criticize the man for asking the question. Instead, he said he understood the frustration with Obama and reminded his audience that they would have the chance to help elect a new president next year.
really? he wasn't immediately critical of the man!?!? are you kidding ?!!?!
|
|
| |
| |
| 662 | Mith
ID: 51253421 Sat, Mar 05, 2011, 01:03
|
Mike Huckabee on Natalie Portman this week:You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock. Mike Huckabee on Bristol Palin in 2008: “It ought to be a reminder that here is a family that loves one another. They stuck with each other though the tough times and that’s what families do." ... Huckabee said the surprise pregnancy announcement should not affect vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s support in the conservative and religious right communities. ... “I’m grateful for the way she’s being supported by her family."
|
|
| |
| 664 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Mar 05, 2011, 08:32
|
It’s a tragedy that the two of them won’t both be running next year. That primary war would be so epic, you’d need a Greek poet to blog it.
Classic.
Coulter and the other confrontationalists love Christie because he loves to bash the left. But he's not going anywhere right now.
|
|
| 665 | Mith
ID: 4010542612 Sat, Mar 05, 2011, 10:18
|
A friend responded to that link on facebook:
As for Palin, who else could BEGIN an interview on a tangent? Someone needs to get her and Charlie Sheen in front of a camera together.
|
|
| 667 | Boldwin
ID: 48259616 Sun, Mar 06, 2011, 18:33
|
MITH#663
Christie is not an idiot. He's just not sufficiently conservative.
|
|
| 668 | Mith
ID: 4010542612 Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 09:16
|
?
I don't get the sarcasm.
Unless you for some reason really thought I was calling Christie an idiot?
|
|
| 669 | Boldwin
ID: 48259616 Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 10:41
|
Just admit you think the entire right are idiots and whoever is currently their biggest draw is king or queen of them all.
This is not a worthy intellectual position but it does stamp prejudiced on your forehead when you don't even bother to attack actual positions.
|
|
| 670 | Mith
ID: 4010542612 Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 10:58
|
You are accusing anyone of political prejudice?
If you define "biggest draw" as most favorable among them, the nod might go to Christie, who I recently wrote the following about on Facebook:
Yeah Christie looks like he has options for a future in DC if he wants one. Moderates like him. If the political climate stays favorable to his agenda he might even become the first Republican since Reagan to be able to peel off some Demo...crat voters. And while socially moderate northeast Republicans with broad regional appeal (Giuliani, Pataki, Romney) are usually dismissed as presidential candidates for being RINOs, Christie has Ann Coulter and a lot of the angry wing of the party begging him to run. David Frum has a great observation on that: http://www.frumforum.com/chris-christie-rino-tough
I should also say I really misjudged him. He looked llike such a boorish amateur through the campaign I really thought he'd go down in flames (like other recent NY/ NJ governors). There's a lot more substance there than I gave him credit for. I'd have to know a lot more before I could say whether I'd support him but the GOP could certainly do a lot worse.
In point of fact I've liked Cristie more as he has become more popular on the right.
|
|
| 671 | Boldwin
ID: 51232710 Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 11:32
|
Nice, tho naturally I like him less and less the more I find out about him, and you the reverse.
|
|
| 672 | Tree
ID: 60121615 Thu, Mar 10, 2011, 08:40
|
interesting to note that at this point during the last presidential election campaign, EIGHT Republicans had either announced their candidacy, or that they were forming exploratory committees for such a run.
this year? none. wonder how much that has to do with a President who's approval ratings are surging up.
it should be noted that Obama's approval rating at this point in his term is higher than Clinton's, Carter's, and *Reagan's* during the same point in their term.
Only the two Bushes ranked higher - interestingly, the younger Bush was embarking on a war at the time, and the elder Bush was concluding one.
|
|
| 673 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Mar 10, 2011, 08:44
|
Since most of the would-be candidates are employed by FOX, there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to announce early.
|
|
| 674 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Thu, Mar 10, 2011, 09:27
|
this year? none. wonder how much that has to do with a President who's approval ratings are surging up.
One could argue that if a few of the possible Rep. names announced a candidacy Obama might see an even bigger uptick in his approval rating. By comparison voters might realize he's doing a good job.
|
|
| 675 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Thu, Mar 10, 2011, 10:13
|
interesting to note that at this point during the last presidential election campaign, EIGHT Republicans had either announced their candidacy, or that they were forming exploratory committees for such a run.
Running for an open seat is very different than running against an incumbent. In 2008, Republicans wanted to declare early and distinguish themselves from the other Republican candidates. Fellow Republicans are going to be somewhat polite towards the other candidates. In 2010, the minute a Republican declares, not only will the media start picking this candidate apart, but they will also be hit hard by the President's proxies.
Furthermore, in my memory, it seems that the most fringe, least likely candidates declare first, the Pierre DuPont's and Scoop Jackson's who strike early to get extra news coverage in hopes of getting their name recognition from 2% to 4%.
|
|
| 676 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Thu, Mar 10, 2011, 10:34
|
For a more accurate comparison how many Dems had announced their canidacy at this point in the prior 2 elections?
|
|
| 677 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Mar 10, 2011, 11:12
|
In 2008, almost all the Democratic candidates announced between November 2006 and February 2007. [Mike Gravel announced really early--before this time--but I don't recall exactly when].
In 2004 Dean announced really really early, as I recall--like June 2002 or something. He had about a six month head start on Kerry. But you might recall that Al Gore dithered a long time about the race, which probably kept Dems from announcing since he would have been a presumptive frontrunner.
|
|
| 678 | walk
ID: 517172117 Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 09:18
|
Bachmann Running?
This would be very interesting. I think she could rally the base, but the base would be insufficient to win a nomination let alone a general election. I ought to be careful what I wish for, but I would welcome her running to watch her look like a zealot in various debates and interviews.
|
|
| 679 | Razor
ID: 160302211 Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 15:49
|
Bachmann won't even finish in the top 3 in a single state primary vote. Her declaring that she wants to run for President is like me saying I want to date Jessica Alba.
|
|
| 680 | revvingparson
ID: 49232136 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 07:35
|
One of the difficulties facing R's this coming election cycle is the "tea-party" faction. It appears that there is a fight going on between the establishment and the freshmen this congressional class (small government vs. the status quo with as few cuts).
This is carrying over into potential candidates, it may very well be that they will be late in jumping in, 1) to see where the economy is-gas prices, and unemployment figures are; 2) how the struggle between the current republican congress turns out.
The biggest problem for the republicans is that they need the tea-party faction to win an election, but the tea-party faction does not have the same fiscal objectives of the established republicans in congress. Just watch how the voting on the CRs go over the next week and it may give you a good indication of which candidates will and will not jump into the fray.
I wouldn't be surprised if the established R's continue to rebuke the freshmen class that a 3rd party candidate jumps in and runs primarily on a fiscal agenda.
|
|
| 681 | Boldwin
ID: 462371311 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 12:37
|
The biggest question is who besides the Koch brother is willing to finance a Tea Party presidential run. I'm assuming they aren't that rich, enuff to tug that barge all by themselves.
|
|
| 682 | Boldwin
ID: 462371311 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 12:41
|
All the guys I've seen with a Tea Party bent over the last 12 years couldn't get a hint of interest from the moneyed interests.
Yes I know the TP hasn't been officially present all that time.
|
|
| 683 | biliruben
ID: 34435239 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 13:38
|
They are the third richest Americans, behind Gates and Buffett. All those billions in oil subsidies and tax breaks have been good to them.
They have shown they can and will buy any politician they want, and have done so over and over again.
|
|
| 684 | Tree
ID: 60121615 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 14:58
|
speaking of Bachmann...
Before headlining a GOP fundraiser, the possible presidential hopeful told a group of students and conservative activists in Manchester (New Hampshire), "You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord."
But those first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire.
not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but mind numbingly stupid. seriously. this is American History 101.
|
|
| 685 | Boldwin
ID: 462371311 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 18:27
|
In the grand scheme of things a lot more people know there are 50 states and not 57 than know which state Concord and Lexington are in.
|
|
| 686 | Tree
ID: 60121615 Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 18:47
|
yes, yes, we've been through that old one already. it didn't mean anything then, and it doesn't mean anything now, but typical red herring of you.
|
|
| |
| 688 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 11:17
|
Run Michele, Run!
CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.
|
|
| 689 | Razor
ID: 172252412 Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 13:25
|
That's the thing about stupid people - they don't know they're stupid.
|
|
| |
| 691 | Mith
ID: 51253421 Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 01:23
|
Gingrich on Neil Cavuto, 9/17/04: “You can’t flip-flop and be commander-in-chief.”
Gingrich on Hannity & Colmes 9/27/04: “I think Kerry’s problem is one of identity… He can’t quite decide, you know — and so I think what you’re going to see more likely with him is a kind of schizophrenia. And if the moderator’s at all serious with Kerry, and puts Kerry on the spot as saying, now, you said a, and you said b. Which is it? I think Kerry’s got a big problem.”
Gingrich on Hannity & Colmes, 5/5/04: “I think maybe the pretzel should become the symbol of the Kerry campaign, because he kind of twists himself into a pretzel trying to fit every group he shows up in front of and trying to appeal to each group on the national issues. I’m beginning to think it’s not such a shock he’s running for president. It’s a little bit of a shock he survived as a Senator.” What would the Gingrich of 2004 say about candidate Gingrich in 2011?
|
|
| |
| 693 | Tree
ID: 24224298 Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 09:28
|
Rubio: No way, no how am I running in 2012
"I want to be United States senator. I want to be the best United States senator that Florida's ever had," added the 39-year-old Rubio who was formally the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. "I just got elected three months ago, so how can I be a full-time United States senator if my eye's already on something else?"
|
|
| |
| 695 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 21:08
|
Poll has Christie kicking ass
An exclusive Newsmax/IBOPE Zogby International poll shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie so dominates the GOP field for 2012 that he garners more than twice as many votes as his nearest Republican competitor.
The Newsmax/IBOPE Zogby survey shows Christie to be the choice of 23.6 percent of likely GOP primary voters. That dwarfs the 10.3 percent for second-place finisher Sarah Palin.
Others rounding out the field in the survey: Newt Gingrich (7.9 percent), Mitt Romney (7 percent), Ron Paul (7 percent), Michele Bachmann (6.9 percent), Huckabee (6.8 percent), Tim Pawlenty (5.9 percent), Donald Trump (5.1 percent), Mitch Daniels (2.6 percent), and Haley Barbour (1.5 percent).
Especially suprising considering this is a Newsmax/Zogby poll. Newsmax has been a fervent Palin devotee until her recent plunge, lately they've been all Trump, all the time - I'm not kidding. They ignore Romney, Pawlenty, even Huckabee, and especially Christie.
|
|
| 696 | Boldwin
ID: 16253251 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 04:17
|
AC and they see something I am missing. I don't know what his appeal is other than an early lead in the public perception as a tuff guy against public sector unions and spending.
|
|
| 697 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sun, Apr 10, 2011, 11:21
|

Gotta love his hair.
|
|
| 698 | Mith
ID: 22141616 Sun, Apr 10, 2011, 11:25
|
I just caught him on Meet the Press. Depending on when it was published, that cartoon probably refers in part to the fact that he has lopped off the neo-Reagan hairdo.
|
|
| 699 | Boldwin
ID: 1135295 Sun, Apr 10, 2011, 12:33
|
SZ#697
The dogged insistence that removing all incentive to produce results [other than government penalties ultimately] actually will work in a society someday is amazing among marxists.
They have no confidence in charity among the wealthy if given a free choice to direct their resources, yet they will somehow be charitible enuff to do their very best work for free if given the lack of choice.
|
|
| 700 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Apr 10, 2011, 13:28
|
They have no confidence in charity among the wealthy
Yes--it worked well in the robber baron days...
|
|
| 701 | Boldwin
ID: 1135295 Sun, Apr 10, 2011, 16:50
|
You know you don't want to get into who is more charitible, red states or blue, capitalist countries or socialist, dems or republicans.
|
|
| 702 | Boldwin
ID: 16317113 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 04:53
|
Day By Day
|
|
| 703 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 08:48
|
#701: Don't mix up your memes. Your #699 was about relying on the wealthy, not the conservative.
|
|
| 704 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 10:14
|
Trump takes on the issues they're too scared to mention
So Donald Trump is the new darling of the Tea Party Patriots. How appropriate it's framed in a cartoon.
|
|
| 705 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 10:34
|
A guy that's a portrait of opulence while driving his company and himself into bankruptcy at least three times... a perfect symbol.
|
|
| 706 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 11:41
|
Re: 705
Don't forget that he didn't make an initially, he just joined Daddy's well connected and profitable company.
Donald Trump is one of the last people I would vote for.
|
|
| 707 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 13:21
|
Ivana Trump was deified by Sarah Palin. It all comes full circle.
The fact that Trump is being talked about at all just shows how empty the GOP barrel is. Same as Paul Ryan's budget.
Fact is, there is a good opportunity for a moderate Republican to step up. Obama has made a number of missteps, particularly in the War on Terror, and a fiscal conservative who doesn't let "American exceptionalism" drive our country into bankruptcy fighting three wars would get a fair hearing from the American people, I think. A guy like Gary Johnson, for instance.
|
|
| 708 | Boldwin
ID: 16317113 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 15:58
|
I'm shocked how well Trump was received. I think it was finally seeing someone with the backbone to tell it like it is and tell the sneering MSM they couldn't care less what the MSM labels them for doing so. That is Palin's biggest gift and it is
The MSM has a harder time labeling Trump an idiot because he has more accomplishment and he already has the public's perception solidified about him so they don't know how to defend their golden teflon boy this time.
|
|
| 709 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 16:02
|
Trump has a certain magnetism, but if he were to run for office, the dirt that he has been able to stay above would start to stick. All of his bankruptcies, affairs, threatened lawsuits, etc., would get more and more coverage.
I don't see him lasting through the process, without a massive blow-up.
|
|
| 710 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 16:05
|
I'm also skeptical that the social nanny-state conservatives would be all in favor of the guy owning a number of casinos. (That's not a problem at all to me, but I'd think it would be to those people.)
|
|
| 711 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 16:05
|
GoP nightmare ticket - Palin and Trump. In any order. Us moderate conservatives would have no choice but to abandon the party.
I hope the Republicans are listening. Quit playing games.
|
|
| 712 | Tree
ID: 24115767 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 16:49
|
The MSM has a harder time labeling Trump an idiot because he has more accomplishment and he already has the public's perception solidified about him so they don't know how to defend their golden teflon boy this time.
it gets easier and easier every day to label him an idiot.
|
|
| 713 | Boldwin
ID: 16317113 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 17:19
|
Ultimately New York doesn't play well in Peoria, but it's a real eye opener how he is blowing everyone's doors off at the polls for now.
Then again Trump is moving and shaking in Chicago now. Maybe he will figure out how to woo Peoria.
|
|
| 714 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 11, 2011, 20:29
|
#711: Exactly.
|
|
| |
| 716 | J-Bar
ID: 48314322 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 00:12
|
re 707 with this new found love for a moderate rep maybe an apology for the most moderate rep in the last 4 decades. Thanks Pres Bush!!! I think the libs are sorry since their shiny star has not waivered much from your moderate policies no matter the leftist promises made. LMAO
|
|
| 717 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 00:47
|
Since when does a moderate Rep drive us into fiscal disaster, openly condone torture, cut taxes for the rich while signing bill after bill after bill with discretionary spending exploding?
I don't think you have a real clear idea of what "moderate" means, let alone "moderate Republican." And you surely have no idea of my own thoughts on the subject if you feel my "love for a moderate rep" is "new found."
|
|
| 718 | Boldwin
ID: 16317113 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 01:48
|
I forget who PD was telling us the ideal Republican candidate was back when the Bush dynasty was getting the party nomination, but is was some country club republican RINO just like the Bush's if not them.
|
|
| 719 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 08:26
|
You forget much, young one.
|
|
| 720 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 12:13
|
As a postscript to #695, it appears the Newsmax/Zogby poll showing strength for Christie, has been overwhelmed.
An Internet poll sponsored by Newsmax.com reveals that Americans overwhelmingly favor Donald Trump as their preferred candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
Online participants in the poll, which has drawn more than 550,000 responses, also support Trump by a wide margin in a head-to-head matchup with President Barack Obama.
If the election were held today, Trump would beat Obama in a landslide, 68 to 13 percent. But that lead is just as sizeable when Trump faces off against the best and the brightest in the oft-mentioned field of GOP contenders for 2012.
Trump takes 57 percent of the vote in a field including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. His closest competitor, according to the poll, is former Massachusetts Gov. Romney with 9 percent of the vote.
link
I'm always amused when people speak of the MSM in such nefarious terms, and hold outlets like Newsmax as a beacon of truth and journalistic integrity. Even though I've really been sure what constitutes the MSM, I've surmised that it consists of outlets that have some type of traditional journalistic integrity. Consider from the first sentence in this article:
Americans overwhelmingly favor Donald Trump
You know the little ads that have you click on "Donald Trump for President" that has been featured even here on the RotoGuru political page. Perhaps Guru could illuminate the origin of these ads, but I'm guessing the Trump organization has funded the effort, as opposed to any real independent poll. Maybe that's why Newsmax qualifies in the article that the poll is non-scientific. How can a Newsmax/Zogby poll conducted a little over a week ago show Trump with 5.1 percent, then report this week that the Newsmax(sans Zogby) poll reveals Trump with 57 percent? Is that what they mean by non-scientific? And when they say that Americans overwhelmingly favor Trump, don't they really mean Americans who clicked on the Trump for President ad, I'm guessing less than 1% of the population.
I refuse to react to cries of the mainstream media(or, worse, the lamestream media)being untrustworthy and biased, when Newsmax, which bills itself as one of America's leading online news services is so blatantly unethical and biased as to be dismissed as a media outlet altogether. Like WND or MoveOn org., it is an opinion outlet, not a news outlet.
|
|
| 721 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 12:16
|
I think the word you were looking for is "self-selecting". (Your general point is obviously correct, of course.)
|
|
| |
| 723 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 17:03
|
The MSM has a harder time labeling Trump an idiot because he has more accomplishment and he already has the public's perception solidified about him so they don't know how to defend their golden teflon boy this time.
Donald Trump is the MSM. He's had a primetime show on NBC for 10 years. He has a show on the golf channel, where he promotes himself as the foremost developer of golf courses in the world. If you ever plan to play one, be sure to bring a wheelbarrow full of cash. These courses are not designed with anyone but the wealthiest golfers in mind. I'll be sure to bring this up the next time I hear a right winger talk about elitists.
And then there's the recent Roast of Donald Trump on Comedy Central. I'm sure the Christian Coalition was enthralled with such family values entertainers as Lisa Lampanelli, Snoop Dogg, Jeffrey Ross, Jersey Shore's "The Situation(Snooki was already booked) and hosted by Family Guy creator, Seth McFarland. Yes, the F bombs flowed freely.
Too bad this roast was taped before Trump went into full birther mode, since that could have provided more comedy fodder than his hair.
What is Donald Trump if not a product of media hype, mainstream media hype?
|
|
| 724 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 17:14
|
Pretty much, all internet polls are unscientific. They don't get a random sample of respondents.
|
|
| 725 | Boldwin
ID: 103311210 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 18:31
|
PV
Just how much accuracy do you need in a poll this far out? Any reasonable person recognizes it's a very very rough indicator representing a lot of irrelevant factors like early lead in name recognition before anyone has spent a nickle on a political ad or done the hat-in-the-ring spectacle.
Demanding they get it right within +/-3 this far out is just anal.
|
|
| 726 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 18:44
|
There is no accuracy at all in internet polls, as B7 points out.
|
|
| |
| 728 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 20:51
|
#725 - I don't think Pancho Villa was criticizing poll results.
|
|
| |
| 730 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:33
|
Aaaand:
|
|
| 731 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 10:25
|
Is it too early for a musical parody of the GOP candidates?
|
|
| 732 | Boldwin
ID: 323371315 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 12:30
|
What's really funny is people who think they are the 'brights' believing Newt Gingerich doesn't know much about history.
|
|
| 733 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 13:20
|
There are, indeed, lots of funny things about the GOP "leaders" and the dittoheads who love them.
|
|
| 734 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 13:26
|
731...freakin priceless!
|
|
| 735 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 13:36
|
What's really funny is people who think they are the 'brights' believing Newt Gingerich doesn't know much about history.
Gingrich.
|
|
| 736 | J-Bar
ID: 203151419 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 20:15
|
re 729 Not sure why this is a good article but i got through it and some points are valid but other items should be included when discussing the working poor and their tax burden: EITC, SNAP, Medicaid, HUD and the other taxpayer funded gimmes. After this is totaled i would be willing to bet the amount of total taxation would be negative.
|
|
| |
| 738 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 20:50
|
What a crock!
The top 20% during the Bush administration were the ones who benefitted from the bubble economy, while the incomes of the middle class stagnated. Compare the increase in the percentage of taxes they paid with the increase in percentage of income they earned and you'll see the disparity.
Are you really fooled by this flimflam J-Bar?
|
|
| 739 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 23:20
|
Does anyone really believe that the your share of federal income taxes paid is some kind of meaningful stat?
Here's another thing: A family of 5 making $20K/year is in the bottom quintile, but someone making $5 million is in the top quintile. How much federal income tax should the first pay verses the second?
The top quintile pay more income tax because they make a *lot* more money, despite Bush's tax cuts.
|
|
| 740 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Fri, Apr 15, 2011, 12:52
|
#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement
• Jon Kyl developed his own line of hair care products just so he could test them on bunnies.
• Jon Kyl can unhinge his jaw like a python to swallow small rodents whole.
• Every Halloween Jon Kyl dresses up as a sexy Mitch Daniels.
• Jon Kyl sponsored S.410, which would ban happiness.
• Jon Kyl let a game-winning ground ball roll through his legs in Game 6 of the '86 World Series.
• Jon Kyl once ate a badger he hit with his car/
|
|
| |
| |
| 743 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 11:08
|
How about the line, "(It never was America to me.)"?
The progressive's motto prolly isn't the ideal republican campaign theme.
|
|
| 744 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 11:27
|
I would urge you to learn more about the poem before commenting on it, B.
You might start with the fact that the writer was a black man. And it was first published in 1936.
|
|
| 745 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 11:34
|
That doesn't change the fact that he expressed 2011 progressive sentiments.
Move to Cuba or Venezuela which apparently is America to you and yours.
|
|
| 746 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 11:51
|
Might as well change the Tea Party slogal to: "Active ignorance and proud of it."
What's next for you, B? Taking Civil War slogans out of context? Re-writing the poems of Robert Frost? (hint: "Fences" is an ironic poem"). How about transplanting John Birch tracts? Or are applying old out-of-context historical quotes a bad thing when applied to groups with your sympathies?
You want to criticize the poem go ahead. I suspect that might not be black and white enough for you--shades of gray are not so easy to criticize.
|
|
| 747 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 12:40
|
it was first published in 1936. That doesn't change the fact that he expressed 2011 progressive sentiments.
No one has that much foreknowledge, do they? I mean, that would be like a person who had a baby 50 years ago somewhere in a place like Nigeria, foreseeing that the black baby will someday run for President of the US, so they had better make as quick trip to Hawaii in order to put false birth announcements in the press.
|
|
| 748 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:29
|
bibA
Yeah, no one has ever crossed the border to secure benefits. WTH was I thinking.
|
|
| 749 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:38
|
Obama's people sure did cross a lot of borders in 1961 to gain that benefit for him which allowed him to later become President!
|
|
| 750 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:42
|
Clearly, we should have upped the defense budget in 1961 to build a large wall between the US and Nigeria. Would have solved this whole problem.
|
|
| 752 | Mith
ID: 123351710 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 11:37
|
Farn, in the WI thread:
Republicans, please put up a real challenger. Sarah Palin and Donald Trump need not apply.
I'm watching Gary Johnson, former governor of NM.
In fact I'm thinking of joining the GOP so that I can support him in the NYS primary (you have to be a party member to vote in the primary here).
Probably a bit libertarian for my taste so I'd have to know more before I could say whether I'd support him in a general election. But in a gaggle of angry blowhards, hysterical screamers and overpolished career flipfloppers, they guy's seriousness and frankness stand out as the last thing you'd expect from anyone seeking that party's 2012 nomination.
And while I haven't discussed it with him, I suspect Seattle Zen might already be cheering him on as well.
|
|
| 753 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 13:15
|
Texas governor asks disaster declaration over wildfires
Typical. Rick Perry turned down Federal money for unemployment for the people of Texas. He turned down Federal money for education of the youth of Texas.
Now, of course, he wants money. Granted, I think this state will need help as it combats these massive fires, but it's a typical lack of consistency here.
|
|
| 754 | Boldwin
ID: 333101916 Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 19:39
|
Only 11 percent of Iowa GOP say they’d be willing to vote for someone who backed a state bill mandating voters have health insurance. - Dem polling via Politico
|
|
| 755 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 21:08
|
So pencil Romney in for 11% of IA GOP in the primary? Should be good for what? 4th?
|
|
| 756 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 21:32
|
The last 5 times the Iowa Republican caucuses were contested (i.e., more than one candidate), Iowa has picked the eventual GOP nominee exactly once.
I'm just sayin'...
|
|
| 757 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 21:39
|
What kind of support does the Iowa GOP have for people who say stuff like:I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
|
|
| 758 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Fri, Apr 22, 2011, 08:09
|
Nevada Sen. John Ensign announced Thursday he will resign amid an ethics investigation, insisting he's done nothing wrong but saying he could no longer subject his family and constituents to further investigation.
The 52-year-old acknowledged in June 2009 that he had an extramarital affair with Cynthia Hampton, a former member of his campaign staff, and that he had helped her husband, Doug Hampton, a member of his congressional staff, obtain lobbying work with two Nevada companies.
Ensign's admission that he cheated on his wife seemingly foreshadowed his political downfall. Amid the scandal, his parents provided the Hamptons with $96,000 described as a gift, and Ensign helped find Doug Hampton a lobbying job.
|
|
| |
| |
| 761 | biliruben
ID: 34435239 Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 09:39
|
ADM's got a mortgage to pay and mouths to feed, dude.
|
|
| 762 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 11:10
|
more on trump..
Donald Trump's affirmation that he's voted in every general election disagrees with actual voting records, according to a spokeswoman with the New York City Board of Elections.
“I voted in every general election,” Trump told CNN affiliate NY1 by phone Friday. “I have records that I voted and so does the Board of Elections. … I signed in at every election.”
...But when asked by NY1 Friday about the discrepancy presented by information from the election board and his claim, Trump said, "You're going to pay a big price because you're wrong."
nice threat there.
and then there's this tidbit: Records also showed Trump has changed his party registration three times over the past 20 years.
|
|
| 763 | Boldwin
ID: 53322222 Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 12:56
|
PD
Don't laugh. In my opinion Grover Nordquist should be investigated for not registering as a foreign lobbyist. Unless he actually has, which I doubt. If memory serves he was very involved with getting CAIR slipped inside CPAC last session.
|
|
| 764 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 14:09
|
He really holds a *lot* more power than he should in the GOP. On his own, he probably wields as much power as the Tea Party itself.
And that's great if you agree with him 100%. But woe to the guy (like Coburn) who veers from the Nordquist path.
Sometimes it takes a guy with solid cred (like Coburn) to rip away the curtain on a guy like Nordquist.
[Regardless, that's still a fine quote about him!]
|
|
| 765 | Boldwin
ID: 53322222 Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 17:03
|
No, not nearly as much as the whole Tea Party. C'mon. But agreed on the rest.
|
|
| |
| 767 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 2638249 Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 10:10
|
back in september 41 percent of ameicans didnt know who joe biden is, probably still dont know. more bubble info.
|
|
| |
| 769 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 16:44
|
roflmfao Do these clowns have NO shame at all?
|
|
| |
| 771 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 18:42
|
That is just cruel. You are going to give Baldwin an aneurysm, he'll end up using obamacare, and have home care provided by an undocumented immigrant from Kenya who swears she saw little Barry playing soccer as a child.
|
|
| 772 | Boldwin
ID: 43482517 Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 18:51
|
I already knew he was a big fan of Rahm. Based solely on his pragmatic effectiveness I am sure. As there are no other redeeming qualities to be found there.
I don't think Trump is all that concerned about morality, good and evil either. Just does it get the job done.
|
|
| 773 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 19:20
|
One man's "pragmatism" is another man's "proof of being a RINO."
In some cases, it is the same man.
|
|
| 774 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 19:49
|
I don't think Trump is all that concerned about morality...
now we all know why you like him.
and 771 for the win.
|
|
| 775 | Boldwin
ID: 43482517 Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:03
|
No, just the opposite course. He's just got the balls to say what I've been dying to hear someone say to various talking heads.
He's a social issues disaster from a conservative POV and I don't like him [or Ayn Rand for that matter] for his amorality, just the opposite. He does have the 'enemy of my enemy' factor working overtime currently however.
|
|
| |
| 777 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 13:33
|
Quite the moral dilemma for Rep John Boehner. On the one hand, you state that Govt spending does not create jobs and that we MUST trim wasteful and unnecessary spending. Then on the other hand, you find yourself having to say, ...unless its in my District.
Army wants to close tank plant in Ohio
|
|
| |
| 779 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 04, 2011, 15:04
|
Think the support for Palin would change if she agreed to quit halfway through the term like she did in Alaska?
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| 783 | Boldwin
ID: 27428117 Wed, May 11, 2011, 16:53
|
The fatal flaws in #782' link start with missing the fact that republicans were saddled with McCain precisely because talk radio objections to him started far too late to effect the primaries. Rush [and anyone else conservative] knew McCain was terrible but they were hoping that obvious fact would be reflected in the early primaries. Rush did not want to be seen as the kingmaker. And so they only started piling on McCain after his was a done deal.
|
|
| 784 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 11, 2011, 17:16
|
Douthat quotes Allahpundit in that article:
"...if talk radio decided primaries, we would never have ended up with McCain as nominee"
This is your point, yes?
The piece points to the fact that the talk show conservative segment of the GOP is addicted to confrontation--how someone makes their points counts more than their actual points. A sort of +1 when landing a solid conservative policy point, and +2 for landing a solid partisan jab on "liberals" at the time. When there is no actual policy point being made, the loud blowhard still "wins" among the talk show GOP'ers.
On your point, however, it has been well-established that the McCain/Palin ticket never recovered after the initial flurry about a week after she joined the ticket--primarily because she continued to be on it.
|
|
| 785 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, May 11, 2011, 18:59
|
Why am I not able to find a transcript for last weeks GOP debate in SC?
I'm at work and cannot watch a 1:20:00 long youtube of the event. Pawlenty bothered to have only his answers transcribed at his campaign site (gee, thanks). Did not even one single conservative outlet or blogger with the means think the thing was worth transcribing?
|
|
| 786 | Boldwin
ID: 204571118 Wed, May 11, 2011, 20:02
|
On your point, however, it has been well-established that the McCain/Palin ticket never recovered after the initial flurry about a week after she joined the ticket--primarily because she continued to be on it. - PD
Only in your mind.
Palin is the only thing that prevented McCain from being in single digits in the general election.
He would have had 80-120 people show up at his campaign stops without Palin.
And for that matter her selection muted some of that conservative hostility from talk radio the piece was talking about.
|
|
| 787 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 11, 2011, 20:38
|
Only in your mind
I suppose. At least, the part of the mind that can read articles like this one.
Palin's addition to the ticket increased the white Evangelical vote on the McCain Palin ticket (sound familiar? These are probably the only people you pal with so the bubble is pretty tight and homogeneous, I'm guessing).
Support actually dropped among Catholics, and dropped quite a bit for independents.
Meanwhile, the fact is that McCain's support continued to tank the more people learned about this "Sarah Palin" person.
|
|
| 788 | Boldwin
ID: 204571118 Wed, May 11, 2011, 20:51
|
Listen what someone who is personally against Palin's conservativism had to say before the selection. [He being a neocon]
|
|
| 789 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:00
|
Bill Kristol is your crutch for Palin! Hahahaha.
|
|
| 790 | Boldwin
ID: 204571118 Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:23
|
Hey, when your enemies promote you...
|
|
| 791 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:34
|
Palin is the only thing that prevented McCain from being in single digits in the general election.
what an astonishingly delusional statement.
and the fact you don't respond to 787 speaks volume to you being completely aware of that fact.
|
|
| 792 | Boldwin
ID: 204571118 Wed, May 11, 2011, 21:46
|
I lived thru that period. McCain couldn't draw flies to his campaign stops until Palin was selected. This is a slam dunk issue for me. The guy was a terrible campaigner, with a disjointed operation, without a majority natural constituency in his own party let alone the country as a whole.
|
|
| 793 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 00:36
|
The numbers say otherwise. I know this is a "slam dunk" for you, but you hold the position despite the actual numbers by actual pollsters.
Only 18% of voters said that they were more likely to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket after Palin was selected.
What actually happened, if you recall, is that conservatives were dispirited because they had a nice guy candidate that they all saw was going to get his butt whipped in the general election. Palin got selected, and the GOP got energized. But this did translated into increased non-GOP votes for the ticket.
|
|
| |
| 795 | Boldwin
ID: 6443123 Thu, May 12, 2011, 04:47
|
Yeah, complain about gays being denied communion and pop another baby in the grinder.
|
|
| 796 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Thu, May 12, 2011, 08:49
|
I could be in the very distinct minority, but after hearing Palin talk, I was less likely to vote for McCain. The thought of her in the WH, scared me.
Nice post PD. I could support the cuts, if companies were hiring, bringing jobs back to the US, and passing the tax cuts onto employees in the form of greater benefits or pay, but we are seeing the opposite. I like calling it anti-life.
|
|
| 797 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 08:57
|
#795: I've not heard of any gays being denied communion. Link?
|
|
| 798 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, May 12, 2011, 09:35
|
Catholic politicians to be reminded that they need to take their Catholicism seriously as well.
And when they do take their Christian religion seriously, this is what they face:
starting at post 330.
|
|
| 799 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 09:44
|
I'm not going to re-hash that argument, Khanan. There is nothing new to add. Christian politicians have to do a balancing act that he failed at doing.
|
|
| 800 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Thu, May 12, 2011, 11:43
|
And when they do take their Christian religion seriously, this is what they face:
the bottom line is that it is possible to both take your religion seriously, without belittling those who don't believe the same as you.
back on topic - honestly, only a fool believes that Palin helped McCain over the long haul. she was a nice bump at first, energizing her base, but ultimately, she was an anchor that weighed McCain down.
i'm not sure he could have won with any running mate - but Palin certainly didn't help him, and the numbers bear that out.
|
|
| 801 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Thu, May 12, 2011, 11:53
|
I for one, was seriously debating between McCain Obama, till McCain named Palin and I heard her speak two or three times. The very idea of her being in the WH as other than a tourist; was terrifying.
|
|
| 802 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, May 12, 2011, 12:09
|
So a big determinate of your voting decision for President is who the Vice-President is? I would weight it about 95% presidential candidate, 5% vice-presidential candidate.
|
|
| 803 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, May 12, 2011, 12:09
|
Well, that seems to be something most of us can agree on - Palin was a poor choice for a running mate for McCain. And she would be a poorer choice in 2012.
|
|
| 804 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, May 12, 2011, 12:24
|
I would weight it about 95% presidential candidate, 5% vice-presidential candidate.
Totally apart from policy issues... considering that 8 of 44 presidents have died while in office, these seem like poor odds.
(Perhaps 5% is fairly close if one considers only the number of days in office filled by the VP.)
|
|
| 805 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 12:29
|
His choice undercut his main argument against Obama: That Obama lacked the experience to become President. By choosing Palin (clearly a choice to try to get the disaffected Hilary Clinton supporters) he undercut his own argument.
The kindest spin is that he outsmarted himself with the pick. The unkindest is that, despite his cultivated "maverick" persona, McCain is a cynical Washington insider who will discard loudly proclaimed positions if there is a short-term political gain to be made in doing so.
|
|
| 806 | Razor
ID: 172252412 Thu, May 12, 2011, 12:45
|
There was a wave of support for the McCain/Palin ticket shortly after it was announced. It declined almost immediately after that and never recovered. The best you could say is that McCain did not hurt his chances by selecting Palin, but I don't even think that is supported by polling data. There is no evidence that Palin helped the ticket. Ordinarily, I'd agree that VP selections are largely irrelevant, but Palin was so polarizing and so underqualified that it became a much bigger issue than it should have been. DWetzel is correct in citing that the biggest job a VP has is potentially being the next President, and Palin did not inspire a lot of confidence in her ability to do that job from the vast majority of Americans.
|
|
| 807 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 13:01
|
Gingrich announces. A campaign slogan contest is already started.
The first is probably the best:
"Gingrich 2012: He will always love America. Unless it gets cancer."
|
|
| 808 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, May 12, 2011, 13:30
|
McCane would have lost with Abe Lincoln as the VP candidate. McCane would have lost to Walter Mondale in 2008. The 2008 election was the not Bush election.
|
|
| 809 | Boldwin
ID: 6443123 Thu, May 12, 2011, 13:44
|
PD#807
Truly funny but...
1) Beats 'Never loved America in the first place'.
2) Not so much when it comes from the people who invented no-fault divorce.
3) Not so much when it comes from people who secretly cheered Bill Clinton's philandering. Who actually respected him 'because he could' as he boasted.
|
|
| 810 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 13:53
|
I'm not aware of anyone, outside of Bill Clinton, who "secretly cheered" what he did.
And isn't the nature of secrecy that the cheering was unknown to have happened?
[Which Oklahoman are you blaming now, regarding no-fault divorce? Wait--you must not have realized that Oklahoma instituted the first no fault divorce laws....oops.]
|
|
| 811 | Boldwin
ID: 6443123 Thu, May 12, 2011, 14:07
|
1) Stock brokers were openly cheering what congress was impeaching at the time. That was just one story I remember from that era.
2) If you were really on your game you would have pointed out Reagan signed the one that really got the ball rolling. Maybe his wife's fortune-teller was pushing it.
|
|
| 812 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 16:05
|
Well, California certainly moved it along, and Reagan's divorce was a "thing" during his campaign for President. "No fault" divorce, IMO, was an awful response to a dreadful situation for women. Kinda like Roe v Wade but with fewer dead babies.
|
|
| 813 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 12, 2011, 17:16
|
Former Sen Ensign's case forwarded to the DOJ.
The guy resigned to stop the investigation. Must have been pretty damn dirty for this thing not only to continue, but to have the committee unanimously refer the thing to the DOJ, as well as a recommendation of expulsion. I don't think a senator has been kicked out since the Civil War.
|
|
| 814 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Thu, May 12, 2011, 17:36
|
802; when there is (a) reason to question the longevity of the presidential candidate, then an evaluation of the VP Candidate is perfectly in order and 9b) the selection of Palin, revealed TONS as to McCains 'fitness' to make HUGE decisions. His judgement was seriously flawed and the choice of Palin simply made that crystal clear.
|
|
| 815 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, May 14, 2011, 22:12
|
Huckabee a no go
I'm a little suprised. Thought Huckabee had a good shot to win the nomination.
The question now is, "Who does this help?"
Probably Palin (if she runs) could pick up a good portion of Huckabee's conservative Christian following. Pawlenty and Daniels(if he runs) might benefit from picking up some of that following as well.
Who it really helps is Romney. It eliminates Romney's main antagonist. It eliminates one of the few contenders with high national name recognition. It's hard to raise the kind of money needed to sustain a presidential run without high national name recognition, and only Romney and Palin have it(OK, Trump and Gingrich as well, but neither can compete).
This might be the ticket that gets Palin in the race. She has the name recognition and can raise money. If she decides not to run, it's a cakewalk for Romney. He's got the organization, the money, name recognition, and the experience of a previous campaign to know where to get the delegates.
|
|
| 816 | Boldwin
ID: 554221421 Sat, May 14, 2011, 22:25
|
I'll tell you what would help Romney.
Donald trump. If it started trending to a Trump Romney showdown imagine putting them on stage together and compare the hair.


Brutal
|
|
| 817 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, May 15, 2011, 10:37
|
Heh. True. Romney always looks like an executive, and that would only be enhanced by being next to The Donald.
|
|
| 818 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, May 15, 2011, 11:06
|
Funny, though the Dems comparably had Edwards and Biden sharing the primary season last time around and hair was a negative for both.
|
|
| 819 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Sun, May 15, 2011, 11:49
|
and a high schooler challenges Michele Bachmann to a Constitutional debate.
As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.
Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:
I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.
|
|
| 820 | Boldwin
ID: 474281514 Sun, May 15, 2011, 15:50
|
Most people considered 'the Breck Girl' to have great hair. How was that a negative?
|
|
| 821 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Sun, May 15, 2011, 17:03
|
re 819....that is SO not going to be accepted. lmao I might have a new hero in Amy.
|
|
| 822 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, May 15, 2011, 19:40
|
Huckabee is out. Likes his high paying FOX gig too much. And I don't blame him one bit.
|
|
| |
| 824 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:51
|
So she is upset that woman politicians are portrayed badly and to prove them wrong she challenges another woman to a debate, seems a bit like some flawed logic there.
|
|
| 825 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:52
|
The info in the last paragraph is not found in the Constitution. So, a debate about the Constitution will not help......57 states.
I volunteer to debate Nancy Pelosi on the Constitution.
|
|
| |
| 827 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Tue, May 17, 2011, 16:31
|
lol The State Gov in favor of leaving the union? THAT's your great hope?
|
|
| 828 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 17, 2011, 16:54
|
Rick Perry would be an interesting candidate. With Huckabee out the Tea Party faithful (who have never been entirely comfortable in their supposed secular roles) would flock to him, particularly in the South.
And that's where it would end. A great hurrah for the "Federal government = evil" crowd.
|
|
| 829 | Boldwin
ID: 9437170 Tue, May 17, 2011, 17:12
|
Rick Perry was one of the co-conspirators of the 'Let's go steal the FLDS children' conspiracy.
Nuff said.
|
|
| 830 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, May 17, 2011, 17:15
|
I don't know that he's in favor of leaving the union (yet). He thinks Texas could leave the union if it wanted to.
Just like 2000, where an unexpected Republican candidate emerged out of Texas.
|
|
| 831 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 17, 2011, 18:25
|
He thinks Texas could leave the union if it wanted to.
He does think this. Or, at least he did. He was wrong, of course, and did make an attempt to retract it at one time.
Texas did try to secede once. Didn't work too well for them.
Texas does have the right to break itself up into four separate states if it wanted, a scenerio which would be likely to weaken to GOP nationally so that is not really a good option for Texas.
Like a lot of the GOP, Perry openly hates the federal government up until the point that he needs it.
|
|
| 832 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, May 17, 2011, 18:41
|
I think Texas can secede.
Also, I will vote for the candidate from Texas..............Ron Paul.
|
|
| 833 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 17, 2011, 18:47
|
Well, I can't really respond to such an obvious error so I'll just leave it there.
Ron Paul keeps the GOP honest, at times, and for that he's helpful to the debate.
|
|
| 834 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Wed, May 18, 2011, 01:52
|
and let's not forget Rick Perry's insistence on living on $10,000 a month rent from the tax payers of Texas.
there's a dream candidate for the Tea Party.
|
|
| 835 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 18, 2011, 07:49
|
Are you going to inform readers (lurkers if they're liberals) that the Governor's mansion burned down? Or, do you want to leave them with the impression that Perry is some kind of crook.
|
|
| 836 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 18, 2011, 14:00
|
You don't think the Texas legislature can vote to secede? Or whatever is required in that state to secede.
|
|
| 837 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 18, 2011, 14:10
|
Like a lot of the GOP, Perry openly hates the federal government up until the point that he needs it.
Asking for federal disaster money due to record draughts and fires? You're going to bring that up, where Obama has denied the request three times due to political reasons. They sucked money out of my check for federal disaster purposes, and now Perry is not allowed to ask for it back when its needed. Texans paid federal taxes, just like everyone else. And now the governor cannot ask for their fair share or for anything at all, because he supposedly hates the federal government?
|
|
| 838 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 18, 2011, 15:00
|
#836: I believe they can vote or make any noise they want to regarding secession. It just doesn't matter--they have no power to actually make it happen.
#837: I haven't heard too much about Obama denying requests, though I understand FEMA did so. Perhaps Obama now has some time on his hands and is opening FEMA mail?
As I understand it, Texas applied for 25 fire management grants and received the grants in each and every case. The larger request (to declare virtually the entire state a disaster area) was denied at the beginning of the month, but I have to admit I haven't followed it since.
I have no idea of what "fair share" means. Oil and gas companies (many headquartered in Texas) made record profits last year as prices at the pump have gone up. What was their fair share?
|
|
| 839 | Tree
ID: 43431815 Wed, May 18, 2011, 16:03
|
Are you going to inform readers (lurkers if they're liberals) that the Governor's mansion burned down? Or, do you want to leave them with the impression that Perry is some kind of crook
the governor's mansion did indeed catch fire.
that doesn't change the fact that the governor did not need to move into a home with a $10,000 a month rent.
and i'm not going to leave them with the impression he's a crook, rather the fact he doesn't care about the taxpayers.
he didn't need a $10,000 a month house. and that's just RENT.
|
|
| 840 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, May 18, 2011, 16:24
|
How did the mansion catch fire? Was Perry free-basing ala Richard Pryor?
|
|
| 841 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 18, 2011, 17:24
|
Some dude threw a molatov cocktail at it. There's a grainy video. There were one or two gaurds who were slacking or something, and a lot of damage was done. It's an open investigation.
#839 I actually agree with you. He's in no hurry to return. It happened like three years ago. #834 was misleading, though. .................... I believe they can vote or make any noise they want to regarding secession. It just doesn't matter--they have no power to actually make it happen.
They have all the power to start the process. After, they do it, the feds may step in. I still think Texas has the option to secede as part of joining the union.
|
|
| |
| 843 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 25, 2011, 13:37
|
Cantor on providing Missouri some disaster funds in the wake of the horrible tornadoes: Maybe, if we can cut spending elsewhere.
This is like your insurance company telling you they'll cover your crashed car once they scrape together enough money for you.
|
|
| 844 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Wed, May 25, 2011, 16:26
|
but we're not gonna cut spending by repealing oil company federal subsidies or the bush era tax cuts. Guess they'll have to slice and dice medicare some more.
|
|
| |
| 846 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Wed, May 25, 2011, 19:53
|
from post 845 -
As governor, Mr Johnson showed that a non-ideological, pragmatic libertarianism can work as a governing philosophy. But neither full-blooded libertarians nor allegedly liberty-loving tea-party enthusiasts really care much about governing. (SZ: because they hate the whole idea of government and cannot ever envision winning) Libertarians, accustomed to dwelling on the margins of American politics, participate in elections without hope of electoral success, if they participate at all. For them, presidential campaigns offer at best an occasion to preach the libertarian gospel to the wary public, and the more table-pounding the better. As for the tea partiers, they seem less interested in practical policy solutions to America's problems and rather more interested in fighting a culture war over what it means to be authentically American. Unless ostensibly liberty-loving conservative voters become convinced that the sensible liberalisation of drug and immigration policy is implied by the inspired language of the Constitution of Independence, the eagle will not soar for Mr Johnson.
|
|
| |
| |
| 849 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Jun 11, 2011, 17:32
|
Herm's in trouble! Change the subject post haste!
|
|
| 850 | Boldwin
ID: 295311022 Sat, Jun 11, 2011, 19:41
|
MITH#845 - why isn't the allegedly libertarian-leaning tea-party movement crazy about him?
That would be because he's wrong.
Being pro-baby killing isn't libertarian.
The border is not some unnecessary big government project that libertarians should be against.
NAFTA and the elite's weakness for illegal immigration is a prelude to a North American Union.
A libertarian who refuses to make principled arguments in favor of making pragmatic arguments instead is some kind of political cross-dresser, not a genius at politics.
|
|
| 851 | Boldwin
ID: 295311022 Sat, Jun 11, 2011, 19:42
|
And who is Herm?
|
|
| 852 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jun 11, 2011, 21:37
|
the dynamic growing part of it's base anyway?
So one tea party is growing at 500 to 2000 members a day (I see you skipped the link in the middle of that article which stated that FreedomWorks might just sit out the election if Romney is nominated).
So do you think there is a chance that this one tea party will reach the 2 million volunteers who registered on MyBarackObama.com?
|
|
| 853 | Boldwin
ID: 475261212 Sun, Jun 12, 2011, 13:39
|
1. There are Tea Party organizations beyond counting, mainly local and independent. Pretty much all in agreement too. Don't get too excited if new Tea Party activists didn't all join this particular one.
2. I see you skipped the link in the middle of that article which stated that FreedomWorks might just sit out the election if Romney is nominated
Because that's what I've been saying since last time Romney ran in '08. Conservatives don't get a warm feeling for him whatsoever, no matter how many Fred's tell us he's our best candidate.
3. do you think there is a chance that this one tea party will reach the 2 million volunteers who registered on MyBarackObama.com?
Since they are split hundreds of ways I doubt any or all will match one official group on the other side with BO's imprimature.
|
|
| 854 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jun 12, 2011, 16:28
|
Ah, the three point backaway from #848. A bit clumsy, but I'm sure only a few people noticed the stumble.
You have to realize that I'm fully in agreement with you on the hope that the eventual GOP nominee is fully 100% in the pocket of the tea party.
I've found the best way to wake up the voters about how poorly the GOP governs is to occasionally give them (the GOP) exactly what they want. The natural consequences of their desires tend to reveal themselves rather quickly.
|
|
| 855 | Boldwin
ID: 345491315 Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 17:10
|
I have no idea what stumble you think you see. If you think Freedom Work's growth isn't typical for all Tea Parties, you haven't provided a scintilla of evidence towards that.
is to occasionally give them (the GOP) exactly what they want.
Yeah, the GOP [as distinct from the Tea Party] does tend toward McCain and Dole style losers, and you are happy to see it.
|
|
| 856 | Boldwin
ID: 345491315 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 00:28
|
A top democratic strategist, Ed Kilgore:I will reiterate a point that the MSM seems to be missing entirely: today's conservatives do not think of the economy and "ObamneyCare" as in any way separate issues. They believe, or at least so they incessantly say, that the sole cause of our economic problems is "big government," of which health reform is the most notorious recent example, and the only route to economic revival is to disable "big government," beginning with health reform. So for Romney to essentially say "I don't want to talk about big government any more, I want to talk about the economy," translates to conservative audiences as "I don't want to talk about the causes of or solutions to our economic problems, I just want to talk about what a great manager I am."
Maybe some Republican primary voters want a presidential nominee who will do a more competent and/or tight-fisted job of managing the satanic enterprise of the federal government than other candidates, but that's more generally considered a deeply suspect RINO credential. I suspect Romney's rivals, including T-Paw, are smart enough to figure that out... Egggzactly Ed. Why anyone ever thot this guy had any electoral base whatsoever amazes me.
|
|
| 857 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 09:53
|
Watched the Rep NH debate last night. Seems to me, they are ALL missing the obvious truth.
Each one of them, rails about how "free markets" are being restrained and how we need less regulation. Apparently, none are cognizant of the simple fact that it was deregulation which led top the most dangerous financial precipice we have been on, in the last 70 years.
Yeah right, to get out of this mess, let's go back to the total failures of policy which CAUSED this mess.
And Newt? Actually endorsing McCarthyism???????????
|
|
| 858 | Mith
ID: 657210 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 10:25
|
Gary Johnson announced his candidacy before anyone else in the GOP. And he was the only officially announced candidate who was not invited. Palin and Bachman, who have not officially announced, were invited. Even Trump, who ended his campaign last month, was invited.
CNN's excuse was that the choices were based on how the candidates fare in their polling numbers. But they also acknowledged that they don''t include Johnson in their polls.
|
|
| 859 | Mith
ID: 657210 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 10:29
|
Boldwin 850
Being pro-baby killing isn't libertarian.
The border is not some unnecessary big government project that libertarians should be against.
Very disappointing. You obviously don't understand libertarianism at all. The correct answer is that tea partiers are conservatives, not libertarians, and are much more strongly influenced by social issues than much of the TP leadership has been willing to admit in the past few years.
|
|
| 860 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 14:01
|
As Leno said, Gary Johnson could have reached 27 new voters if he had been on the CNN debate.
I like that guy, that David Brenner look isn't going to help him, though.
|
|
| 861 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 14:08
|
Gary Johnson climbed mount everest, I think even without being a governor for 8 years gives him more qualifications then Palin and Bachmann
|
|
| 862 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 16:11
|
No way that's correct. Sarah can see Mount Everest from her front porch, dude.
;)
|
|
| 863 | Boldwin
ID: 345491315 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 17:28
|
MITH
Do you honestly believe I don't know libertaraian philosophy backwards and forwards? I spend more time researching the philosophical foundations of political theory than the rest of this board put together.
I'll grant what you said about Tea Partiers being conservative, not libertarian, but they do borrow significantly from libertarians.
I'll point out that Ron Paul won the CPAC poll between presidential contenders, which both shows how influential libertarianism is as a minority influence among the GOP and conservatives, and that CPAC hasn't synched up with the Tea Party as well as you would have expected. Especially the last CPAC convention cycle.
|
|
| 864 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 17:46
|
but [conservatives] do borrow significantly from libertarians.
I don't know who borrows from whom, but modern American liberals share plenty of values with libertarians, too.
Gary Johnson is a truer libertarian than Ron Paul.
|
|
| 865 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 12:27
|
As a follow up to #76, Coburn starts to turn it up to 11 against Nordquist.
This is an interesting inner-GOP battle. If Coburn can break Nordquist's magical hold on the GOP, this will play very well for them in the long term, as it allows them to discuss far more legislative options to reach their goals.
|
|
| 866 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 13:30
|
Not much to say about this political ad, except that I really, really hope it is an outlier:
No, it isn't a parody. TPM story.
|
|
| 867 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 16:12
|
Saw that. Right Turn USA looks like a local attention-seeking and otherwise inconsequential outfit. Worth looking into whether there are any more prominant affiliations I suppose.
Kudos to Daily Caller for calling them out and pointing to wingnuts who are inexplicably supportive of the thing.
|
|
| 868 | Boldwin
ID: 175341520 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 21:34
|
I don't know who borrows from whom, but modern American liberals share plenty of values with libertarians, too. - MITH
Other than 'the government should let us kill more babies in celebration of moral anarchy', what on earth do liberals think they have in common with 'little to no government' libertarians?
|
|
| 869 | Boldwin
ID: 175341520 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 22:24
|
About the most helpful anti-statist position they might think they have [in theory] is that the state is used by the elite for their own advantage. But where in practice do they limit that? Has the growth of federalism limited that? Big corporations just uses big government to create and enforce monopoly for themselves.
Try squatting / homesteading on the 90% of the land confiscated from 'we the people' by big government in some states and see how much liberal support you get.
No matter how you decorate the big government big stick liberals use to force their social gimmicks you can't call it libertarian without being guilty of 100% sophistry.
|
|
| 870 | Boldwin
ID: 175341520 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 22:47
|
In fact the Soviet Union used to claim that eventually they would lead the world to complete anarchy. Sounds libertarian? But when someone steals everything you have, enslaves you, beats you until you don't dare have a thot of your own...I think their claims that they will let you loose eventually aren't credible.
|
|
| 871 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:01
|
what on earth do liberals think they have in common with 'little to no government' libertarians?
Off the top of my head:
Opposition to domestic spying, primarily endorsed by the political right.
Opposition to the denial of religious freedom to Muslims, primarily endorsed by the political right.
Opposition to criminal profiling based on race, religion and culture, which is primarily endorsed by the political right.
Opposition to the war on drugs and mandatory minimum prison sentences, which are primarily endorsed by the political right.
Opposition to torture of foreign terrorism suspects, which is primarily endorsed by the political right.
Opposition to the militarization of our nation's police forces, which is primarily endorsed by the political right.
Conservatives who don't endorse some above typically cite their sympathy to libertarian values as the reason for why they break with the political right in those cases.
You claim the position of most learned forum regular on libertarian values on this forum by some huge margin. But you are somehow unaware that the issues the right tend to agree with them on are economic ones and the issues that the left tend to agree with them on are social ones?
The resident swami of political theory fails political science 101.
|
|
| 872 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:08
|
To answer your rhetorical question from another thread, the reason I'm able to find the time to drive you crazy is your tendency to make it so darn easy on me.
|
|
| 873 | Boldwin
ID: 175341520 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:14
|
Every last one of those points hinges on the question, 'is protecting the population part of the government role allowable by libertarianism?'.
It's about the only legitimate one and liberals don't want it done.
|
|
| |
| 875 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:31
|
Every last one of those points hinges on the question, 'is protecting the population part of the government role allowable by libertarianism?'.
To the same extent that every current common rightist/libertarian issues hinge on the question, 'is providing the population with infrastructure, institutions and safety nets part of the government role.'
But I wouldn't personally go quite that far. Unlike some, it isn't necessary for me to make gross and combative exagerations and extrapolations to emphasize my distaste for the political opposition.
|
|
| 876 | Boldwin
ID: 175341520 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:44
|
Protecting the populace is faaaaar more likely to be viewed favorably by libertarian theory than the nanny state and micromanaging institutions and policy. These self-evidently contravene the most fundamental libertarian principle of small government.
Your triumphalist [and combative] #871 flounders on the fact that it doesn't involve libertarian issues. How much protection is too much protection is a pragmatic question, at times a moral question but not one that tramples fundamental libertarian principle such as 'small government'.
|
|
| 877 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:51
|
Protecting the populace is faaaaar more likely to be viewed favorably by libertarian theory than the nanny state and micromanaging institutions and policy.
You are unable to see past your narrowly focused conservative worldview of what constitutes "protecting."
How much protection is too much protection is a pragmatic question, at times a moral question but not one that tramples fundamental libertarian principle such as 'small government'.
The fundamental libertarian principle it tramples is civil liberty.
|
|
| 878 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 23:56
|
It's very clear why you are unable to distinguish someone like Ron Paul from a true libertarian.
|
|
| 879 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 00:04
|
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”.
|
|
| 880 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 00:32
|
Libertarian Party platform
Might as well let them speak for themselves is all I'm saying.
For purposes of describing them as somehow more rightwing than leftwing, I will merely point to their points 1.2 (end), 1.3, and 1.4 in their platform.
I won't deny that the current GOP fascination with "government is the problem" allows some overlap of the GOP and Libertarian parties. But unless Baldwin is suggesting that a pro-abortion, pro-decriminalization of drugs, and pro-gay marriage member of the GOP will get very far at any level of the Republican party then the differences are far too big to bridge.
|
|
| |
| |
| 883 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 15:02
|
I thought you were against Tax cuts becuase they do not stimulate the economy?
|
|
| 884 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 15:12
|
I'm against tax cuts for the wealthy which are done just to cut taxes and which do not, in the end, pay for themselves.
I'm on record here and elsewhere of being for the last stimulus program, which was 1/3 tax cuts (mostly for the working class), because those are the kinds of people who will be using those cuts and plowing it right back into the economy, buying goods & services.
The real problem here isn't trying to nail me as being anti-tax cut, but wondering what the GOP is really for if they cannot handle a straight wage tax cut as a means to stimulate the economy while we're all worried about a double dip recession. Their fear of appearing to be seen as "helping" Obama is larger than their desire to help America. Or to further their own stated goals.
This all comes from a GOP which has no real goal except trying to "beat" a Democratic president politically.
|
|
| 885 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 16:38
|
or maybe it about you always try and "nail" the republicans. Maybe it is possible that they learned/think the last stimulus did not work why waste more money. Trust me if we are going into double dip recession another tax holiday is not going to save us.
|
|
| 886 | walk
ID: 348442710 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 16:59
|
The congressional budget office, a non-partisan group, said the stimulus saved about 2 million jobs. However, it cost a lot of money, maybe 250k per job as some calculations have determined (as we spend 2 billion a week on Afghanistan). All of this is pretty google-able. The stimulus would have been even more effective had: (1) Congress granted more more to spend (yes, more); (2) the Dems backed themselves and boasted about the success and the need for more (as Paul Krugman does almost weekly). I think PD is on the right track, and the bigger pic is one's philosophical bent: do ya care about folks less fortunate, and are you willing to spend a little for them (healthcare, jobs, tax increases, etc.).
|
|
| 887 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 17:03
|
#885: Everything I've read (and you can correct me on this if you find anything to the contrary) was that they didn't believe the stimulus worked and that the money spent therefore wasn't worth it.
Tax cuts, on the other hand, isn't money spent. In fact, the GOP believes we are overtaxed, and that tax cuts are the first step toward (wait for it): A better economy.
So when asked to do the very thing they say is important in the very way they say it is important to do it, they punt and refuse to agree with the President on it.
|
|
| 888 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 17:08
|
That's because the GOP of today, has no true ideas of their own, save one...oppose President Obama. If the Reps DO propose something (which they have) and the president agrees with it (which he has), they suddenly swap and now oppose their own idea. (Which has happened)
in short, the GOP of today couldnt care less about America, only about defeating President Obama in the next Presidential election; and they are more than willing if not eager, to throw America under the bus to do it.
|
|
| 889 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 17:33
|
All Republicans hate America.
|
|
| 890 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 17:35
|
No, they hate an American where there is a President who is a Democrat.
|
|
| 891 | Boldwin
ID: 8557171 Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 03:00
|
If America lasts long enuff, here is a future president of America and certainly the next senator from Texas.

Ted Cruz with a dream resume and a dream string of endorsements.
[With Ed Meese running his campaign, so MITH will surely pop-up and tell us what a loser Ed Meese and by extention Cruz is.]
Source, George Will writing for 'Investors' Business Daily'
|
|
| 892 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 08:02
|
certainly the next senator from Texas.
so far, polling indicates otherwise. in recent polls, he's not even in the top 5 for the Republican side, much less the actual senate seat.
|
|
| 893 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 08:30
|
Boldwin reminds me a NFL draft gurus, make 1000 claims about the next X, and then point back to the 1 in 1000 that is true when it happens.
|
|
| 894 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 09:28
|
So, the Secretary of Defense (Republican) hates America. That's probably not good.
|
|
| 895 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 10:27
|
Colin Powell, is another example of the 1:1,000,000 Republicans, appealing to both sides of the aisle.
|
|
| |
| 897 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Sat, Jun 18, 2011, 16:13
|
Good for Romney. He seems to be the one the making the decisions I like most so far. Not sold on him, yet.
|
|
| 898 | Boldwin
ID: 26521819 Sat, Jun 18, 2011, 20:02
|
Is there even a single conservative bone or impulse in your body, Khahan?
|
|
| 899 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jun 18, 2011, 20:29
|
Heh. Surprisingly, Khahan is probably more traditionally conservative than you are, Boldwin.
As Romney notes himself:
It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
Here's the pledge, BTW. This overly-broad worthless pledge would ask a future president, among other things, to deny federal financial aid for students going to a college in which an emergency abortion is performed. It would suspend all federal dollars to hospitals. It would suspend all payments to the UN. Etc etc. Very poorly thought out, at best.
Being conservative means using your brain. Glad to see Romney decided to dust his off.
|
|
| 900 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Sat, Jun 18, 2011, 20:46
|
Elliot on CNN had a discussion last night with some right-wingnut anti-planned parenthood pissant. Claims that even though Fed law already prohibits fed funding/monies going to abortion svcs, PP cant claim they dont use the monies for such, since the monies can cover "overhead". As Elliot said though, the same can be said of every hospital in the nation. So using that argument vs PP, means shutting down every hospital across the country as well.
These loonies, in pursuit of their narrowminded self-righteous view of the world, have no ability to see the big picture.
You REALLY want to dramatically reduce abortion? Then let PP do what it does best, and PREVENT unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Defunding PP, will in fact INCREASE, the demand for abortions.
|
|
| 901 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 09:34
|
898 -boldwin I can be rather impulsive with a lot of things. But when it comes to choosing the potential future leader of our country for the next 4 years, no, I'm not really that impulsive.
And since none of the candidates have really stood out early on, I'm taking my time evaluating them.
As for my conservativeness - I'm fairly conservative when it comes to my views on finances and government, and military. I'm rather conservative in my evaluation of individuals. But more liberal on my social views.
|
|
| 902 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 11:08
|
US Republicans applaud off-color 'Obama' skit
A President Barack Obama impersonator won cheers and laughter Saturday at a gathering of Republican activists with an often off-color routine that mocked the real Obama's mixed-race parentage.
Actor Reggie Brown's routine to the Republican Leadership Conference here drew groans and was ultimately cut short after he savaged the crowded field Republican of candidates eager to deny Obama a second term.
nice to know that his roasting of Republicans got him pulled.
that being said, at least some GOP members acknowledge why this is a problem: At least one prominent Republican, former Republican National Committee spokesman Doug Heye, immediately expressed dismay with Brown's routine.
"Wonder why many minorities have problems with GOP? Hiring Obama impersonator to tell 'black jokes' at SRLC, for starters. Our own fault," he said in his Twitter feed.
|
|
| 903 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 12:23
|
Sarge33
"...ie. Planned Parenthood reduces the abortions in America"
It is to laugh.
|
|
| 904 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 12:36
|
Really, providing birth control, condoms and teaching abstinence doesn't prevent unwanted births and indirectly abortions? How is that laughable? Or are you trying to pretend that you are are so naive that you believe unmarried sex does not occur.
That is the biggest problem I have with far right conservatives, you want smaller government, until you can't tell others how to live.
|
|
| 905 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 12:43
|
There are plenty of countries around the world with the same premarital sex rates but lower pregnancy rates. The difference is that these countries provide sex ed to their kids and their parents aren't afraid of it.
Education is power. Education is pro-life.
|
|
| 906 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 13:02
|
Pd, Sarge
As former directors of 'Planned Parenthood' facilities have pointed out, 'Planned parenthood' is all about abortions and accounting gimmicks are used to lie about it.
Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion. But of course they do. Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding and performed more than 650,000 abortions between 2008 and 2009. An abortion is expensive. Its cost includes pay for the doctor, supporting medical staff, their health benefits packages and malpractice insurance. As clinic director, I saw how money affiliate clinics receive from several sources is combined into one pot, not set aside for specific services.
Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortions make up just 3 percent of its services is also a gimmick. That number is actually closer to 12 percent, but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit. The resulting difference between family planning and abortion “visits” is striking.
But that’s not the only deception Planned Parenthood is spreading.
It also claims to help reduce the number of abortions. Not only is this not what Planned Parenthood actually accomplishes, but its goal couldn’t be more opposite. As a Planned Parenthood clinic manager, I was directed to double the number of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue. In keeping, Planned Parenthood headquarters recently issued a directive mandating that all of its affiliates provide abortions by 2013. - Abby Johnson, former director of the Byron Texas Planned Parenthood clinic before turning pro-life. Pro-abortion forces have tried to force every physician to perform abortions [and you can be sure obamacare will require them to exactly perform the procedures the pro-abortion forces want]
Pro-abortion forces have tried to require every medical school to teach every doctor abortion procedures no matter how conscientiously opposed they may be.
Proabortion forces have tried to tie all federal funding to healthcare to the willingness to murder babies.
Don't go calling out pro-life as opposed to funding poor people's health. Blame the people who actually are holding the health of the poor hostage to the death culture.
|
|
| 907 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 13:24
|
Key takeaway lines...
"Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion"
That number is actually closer to 12 percent, but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit.
"I was directed to double the number of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue."
"It also can’t be bothered to enable women to make informed decisions. Planned Parenthood has adamantly opposed laws in nearly two dozen states that require clinic staff to show a woman a sonogram before an abortion. "
"Another nuisance the organization is seeking to do away with is reporting sex abuse of minors."
"I joined Planned Parenthood because I wanted to help poor women with real health care needs. I still do -- that’s why I left. Planned Parenthood doesn’t care about women’s health care needs, it cares about abortion."
|
|
| 908 | Tree
ID: 46521913 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 14:02
|
Reposting stuff that's already proven to be untrue doesn't suddenly make it true.
|
|
| 909 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 16:28
|
Because you know more than the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic about their procedures.
|
|
| 910 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 16:48
|
So the director of one Planned Parenthood speaks for every clinic in the country?
And the reason she was speaking out was due to the budget cutbacks that were forcing a change in their business model. Who has been championing those cutbacks?
|
|
| 911 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 16:53
|
No, the reason she was speaking out was to counter the outrageous current meme that Planned Parenthood is not primarily in the abortion business and somehow medical care in the USA would go away if this abortion mill was closed.
Very dishonest of you, Frick, to portray a pro-life convert as if she were defending PP against pro-life attempts to abort the abortion inductry.
|
|
| 912 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 17:10
|
obamacare will require them to exactly perform the procedures the pro-abortion
What an idiotic statement. Either you really believe this (in which case you have stopped thinking a long time ago) or you think it is fine to post lies (in which you case you gave up your Christianity long ago).
As for Planned Parenthood, it is clear that Baldwin would d rather pass along discredited talking points than than to spend more than a single minute thinking through the difficult issue of abortion (and its causes) in this country. Abortion isn't going to go down by punishing women who seek to go through with their right to get one. It is by driving down the pregnancy rates, particularly among those more likely to seek abortions when they find themselves pregnant.
For decades now the pro-life cause has been co-opted by those who are wrapped in self-righteousness, hoping to guilt or badger or even harm pregnant women into not having abortions. Meanwhile their own inability to teach full sex education to girls (the one thing proven to drive down pregnancy rates) keeps the pipeline full of girls getting pregnant for them to aim their hatred toward.
To whom would the militaristic wing of the pro-life movement turn if suddenly the pregnancy rates were dropping? It sure ain't Jesus...
|
|
| |
| 914 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 17:30
|
pssst, post 902.
and they didn't wise up until he started mocking Republicans too...
|
|
| 915 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 18:11
|
Oops--thought that was in another thread--my bad.
I didn't see the video or anything of it, but I understand that the audience was uncomfortable from the start.
|
|
| 916 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jun 20, 2011, 00:56
|
Just to give you guys a heads up: The next meme to come from the Right will be that APA rules are causing electric companies to close dozens of plants and fire hundreds of people. The fact that it isn't really true won't slow down the fearmongers.
This is your weekly political PSA. Sometimes it is a good idea to get a little ahead of the crap.
|
|
| 917 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Mon, Jun 20, 2011, 01:31
|
Came across this while reading about the Obama impersonator stand up act.
Didn't know what thread to put this in. Should I be more appalled at FOX News for staging this farce or with that Gary Johnson is desperate enough to agree to it?
|
|
| 918 | scoobies
ID: 425462015 Mon, Jun 20, 2011, 16:47
|
The Obama impersonator won.
|
|
| 919 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Mon, Jun 20, 2011, 18:12
|
Gary "Dangerfield" Johnson.
|
|
| |
| 921 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 11:51
|
As if he was going anywhere. What happened to McCain? I thought he was the awesome candidate?
|
|
| 922 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 14:15
|
Sarah Palin happened to McCain, thereby thrusting him back into the shadows of irrelevancy.
|
|
| 923 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 16:55
|
Huntsman today:“He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love,” Mr. Huntsman said of Mr. Obama. “But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who’s the better American.” Much better start than lobbing bombs. I can't help but wonder how many moderates just glaze over the parade of Republican dunderheads who build their campaign platforms around hyperbolic soundbite attacks on the president. How sad is it that Huntsman got my attention simply by not saying something outlandish?
|
|
| 924 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 17:08
|
PD#916
That's not what the normally liberal IBEW union [which my dad was a lifelong member of] of Texas says.
I read somewhere that something like 48% of the new jobs since Obama took office have been created in Texas.
Can't have that when you are in the business of sabotaging the country:It’s a rare moment when Republicans and unions agree on much, but as it turns out, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union agrees: The EPA is dangerously overreaching in its CATR finding. The IBEW also fired off a letter of protest on June 16, to Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Air and Regulation. The letter strongly protests the EPA’s failure to allow for any comment on the rule change, and expresses the IBEW’s concern that “including Texas in the final CATR for SO2 would result in significant increases in electricity rates, temporary or even permanent shutdown of existing coal-fired power plants, reduced capacity reserves and enormous job losses. This action would directly jeopardize the jobs of approximately 1,500 IBEW members working at six different power plants across the state of Texas.”
That Texas economic success story you’ve been hearing so much about in the news lately? The EPA’s actions here threaten it very directly, by increasing electricity costs while throwing thousands of Texans out of work. If the EPA wants Texas’ unemployment rate to climb up to the higher national average, this ruling may help that along.
White House chief of staff Bill Daley found himself confronted by angry manufacturers this past week, who were upset at the way the Obama administration keeps “throwing sand in the gears” of US industry. At one point, Daley is said to have thrown up his hands in exasperation and said:
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.”
Indeed. And thus far, this administration’s record on putting bureaucracy and ideology in the way of economic activity and recovery is truly indefensible. - Pajamas Media
Maybe I should say when the IBEW and WH chief of staff agree the policy is indefensible, you know it is.
|
|
| 925 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 17:09
|
Have to agree MITH. I know almost nothing about Huntsman, but based on that comment, I'm gonna do some learning.
|
|
| 926 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 19:25
|
Huntsman: Worked in Reagan and Bush admins, yeah well he also worked in the CFR organization, Pacific Council on International Policy and communist front group Brookings institute, Asia Policy Board as a board member.
Nothing to get conservatives excited. Just another guy with good 'governor executive management experience'.
Conservatives don't want big government managed. They want it shrunk and eliminated where possible.
|
|
| 927 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 19:31
|
Strikes me, conservatives want the benefits of the USA, but want someone else to pay for it all.
|
|
| 928 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 19:45
|
And that "someone" better not be the wealthy.
|
|
| 929 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 20:07
|
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.”
In all fairness, this was not said in relation to AEP or anything they are doing. This is a quote that has been used by those trying to make an overreaching argument about regulation. A quote from an Obama official at the National Association of Manufacturers, I believe.
Ironically, this was said in response to a guy who has spent $100,000 fighting a government suggestion to purchase and use $180,000 worth of equipment to answer an objection about the effect of his work on migratory fish.
Does the EPA and other agencies overreach? Sure. But AEP has been wining about the costs of regulation for literally decades, while others in their industry have done the right thing and brought down their pollution levels. AEP is the newest incarnation of Lee Iacocca, complaining about air bags.
|
|
| 930 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 20:45
|
The manufacturing group that was confronting Daley say Daley said it.
Your moderator voice doesn't trump that. Or anything else for that matter.
|
|
| 931 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 21:02
|
Nothing to get conservatives excited.
Of course that should be qualified by "my brand of conservatism, dominated by hysterical blatherings like when you are in the business of sabotaging the country.
You won't get that kind of rhetoric from Huntsman, which, along with being Mormon, will disqualify him with the red meat faction of conservatism.
Sarah Palin likes to talk about common sense solutions, and no candidate exudes common sense more than Huntsman. I think most thinking conservatives will find Huntsman a refreshing alternative, someone who is respectful of others' opinions and measured with his rhetoric.
He's the candidate most likely to appeal to a wide cross-section of Americans, which is feared by both the far left and right. Plenty of conservatives will get excited about him, probably in 2016, after Obama kicks the 2012 tea party approved candidate to the curb.
|
|
| 932 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 21:37
|
Or, Huntsman's problem could be that nobody has ever heard of him.
|
|
| 933 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 21:42
|
I may be a nobody, but he was my governor.
|
|
| 934 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 22:03
|
If FNC likes him he'll get all the attention he needs. "Nobody" ever heard of Herman Cain until FOX News made him the flavor of the month in May.
|
|
| 935 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 22:20
|
Or, Huntsman's problem could be that few people have ever heard of him.
|
|
| 936 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 23:54
|
That is not how the term 'red meat' is used.
|
|
| 937 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 00:02
|
I think most thinking conservatives will find Huntsman a refreshing alternative, someone who is respectful of others' opinions and measured with his rhetoric. - PV
Trump rocketed to the stratosphere briefly doing the exact opposite. Even tho he had virtually no other conservative credential. Because conservatives are sick to death of Republicans who will not stand up, speak their principles and stick it right back to snarling snarky lamestream media with equal conviction.
So naturally PV and Fred are looking for Bob Micheals to come out of retirement or Leiberman or anyone who will cringe when Couric suggests they might be conservative.
|
|
| 938 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 00:13
|
I think most thinking conservatives will find XXXXXXX a refreshing alternative
David: Fill in Trump's name, and you'll have the reason he was (briefly) talked about by the GOP. You aren't exactly doing yourself a favor by trying to disprove PV's point by bringing up Trump's, particularly in the way you do.
Yeah, we get it--for you the most important quality of a "conservative" is to be an a$$hole.
|
|
| 939 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 00:15
|
And for you the most important qualification for a Republican candidate is how small a speedbump they'll be for Obama.
|
|
| 940 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 00:20
|
Nah. The most important qualification is to have half a brain. And one who doesn't feel it is important to insult half the country as a means toward policy and issue discussions.
For you, of course, it is the opposite: A Republican being civil is a liability for you.
You learned the wrong lessons from Reagan.
|
|
| 941 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 00:55
|
Clap clap.
|
|
| 942 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 02:15
|
I don't think Reagan ever flinched once. You'd like to forget how tall and unbending he stood for core conservative principles and how well that was received by the electorate. You'd like to believe those landslides were won by a guy who split every difference, appeased, compromised, 'grew' as he was exposed to his betters in the media and Washington elite. He wasn't having any of that.
Now granted he threw it back at them with the best comic talent we'll ever again see in the WH, so I'm not expecting to see his like again or going to demand that from any one else.
I'd love to see someone get everyone at the debate belly-laughing at liberalism as Reagan could, or cut them to ribbons so deftly they they didn't even know they were bleeding till they got home and replayed the tape as Bill Buckley did.
Short of that impossible to duplicate talent, I'll still be greatly impressed by a Cain or a Bachman or a West. Palin too by the time she's Reagan's age.
|
|
| 943 | Boldwin
ID: 7536223 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 04:43
|
Can anyone here honestly state that this sounds like who the voters of the 2010 landslide are looking for?The Jon Huntsman I know supported Barack Obama and President Obama's recovery act, but said it should have been larger...The Jon Huntsman I know worked with Democrats to pass the cap-and-trade program and said at the time it was the only alternative to a carbon tax. The Jon Huntsman I know signed into law a health insure exchange and proposed an individual mandate for Utah. It now appears that has all changed. - WaPo, Nia-Malika Henderson It is to laff. Huntsman is Romney light. Mitt with just a tad less 'passion' and sense of entitlement, just a skosh less.Huntsman 2012 is a joint production of the political media and the fun wing of the GOP's consultant class. (His chief strategist is McCain veteran John Weaver, who made a hobby of criticizing McCain's negative turn in 2008; his adman is Fred Davis, who made sure you knew Christine O'Donnell was not a witch.) There is no Huntsman groundswell. There was no Draft Huntsman movement. One metric to show this: He has about 5,000 Facebook fans. A reasonably busy senator has that many. The wildly ignored 2012 contender Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, has more than 120,000 fans. True, Huntsman's team cleverly secured a second-place showing in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference [straw poll]. When that result came down, my colleague John Dickerson heard only two hands clapping. - Dave Weigel But quick, someone create 'The Real Jon Huntsman' thread if you can finish creating it without falling asleep in the process.
Only if this ascot wearin rich kid charisma connected with live audiences as well as JFK could you even conceive of this guy winning the nomination, let alone the election.
|
|
| 944 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 08:54
|
So it's Jon Huntsman. I wondered what his first name was.
Re: #922, McCain can ditch Palin this time around. But, let me guess, his pick of Palin was so bad that it ruined his Presidential aspirations forever. Also, the Obama of 2012 will be easier to beat than the Obama of 2008 IMO.
|
|
| 945 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 10:03
|
Re: #922, McCain can ditch Palin this time around. But, let me guess, his pick of Palin was so bad that it ruined his Presidential aspirations forever.
actually, him leaving his own principles and core supporters behind in an attempt to garner the RINO (Read: those claiming to be true conservatives) vote is what ruined his chances.
|
|
| 946 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 10:20
|
Huntsman was a very popular governor of one of the most conservative states in the country. To call him "Romney lite" demonstrates just how far right the GOP has moved its own goalposts.
It is just sad that it is pretty much only the Democrats who are calling for more civil and constructive political dialogs between the parties.
I don't think Reagan ever flinched once.
Again with the learning of the wrong lessons. Reagan was popular because he presented himself as willing to talk to anyone with an idea. {He owed his political success to Reagan Democrats, who would have been demonized by Reagan in your historical re-write). Somehow the GOP has conflated "willingness to be civil" with "the bending of principles." Since when did good principles come to be so brittle that talking civil with Democrats endanger them?
The answer, of course, is that good principles stand up to any interactions, even good ones. Perhaps, then, they aren't all so good.
|
|
| 947 | Boldwin
ID: 7536223 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 12:33
|
The core principles aren't open to compromise.
With healthcare you either have sabotage leading to socialism, or you fight for healthy free enterprise. There is no happy medium.
There is no, 'how many babies should we kill this decade, let's split the difference between our zero and your 'entire black future generation', yeah, half that would be civil and reasonable. In your universe.
|
|
| 948 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 13:00
|
Heh. False dichotomies might work with the RedState crowd, but you need a better skill set here.
When your bias toward demonizing people gets in the way of your actual goals, you need to question what, exactly, your goals are.
|
|
| 949 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 13:05
|
The GOP's current fixation with libertarianism gives them a tough planning session for the summer. Here's one solution:
|
|
| 950 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 18:43
|
this ascot wearin rich kid
That's totally pathetic and a good example of what's wrong with politics in this country. It's not enough to disagree with Huntsman on this issue or that issue. He must be cariacatured as a spoiled little rich kid who's never worked an honest day in his life.
This characterization is made despite the fact that he has worked in 4 presidential administrations; speaks several dialects of Chinese (Mandarin and Taiwanese Hokkin fluently); has been awarded six honorary doctorate degrees; as governor, he cut taxes by more than $400 million—the largest tax cut in the state's history—while still maintaining a budget surplus and Utah was named the "Best Managed State in America" by Pew Research Center.
Yes, he comes from a wealthy family. His parents fritter away their wealth on such trivialities as the Huntsman Cancer Institute.
SALT LAKE CITY—Officials at Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) at the University of Utah today announced a gift of $41 million from Utah philanthropists Jon and Karen Huntsman.
“Except for my family and faith, there is no cause more important to me than fighting cancer,” Jon M. Huntsman said in presenting the donation. “I have committed the rest of my life to doing all I can to support clinical and research efforts to eliminate this disease. We are so pleased with the great work performed by Huntsman Cancer Institute in preventing cancer, caring for those who suffer, and searching for a cure. We feel blessed to be in a position to increase our support for this life-saving work.”
Huntsman is the kind of person this country needs in a position of leadership, be it president or some other position, state or federal. Reducing him to the object of insulting characterizations says a lot more about the insultee than the insulter.
|
|
| 951 | weykool
ID: 343561414 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 18:49
|
Reducing him to the object of insulting characterizations says a lot more about the insultee than the insulter. Dont you mean: Reducing him to the object of insulting characterizations says a lot more about the insulter than the insultee.
|
|
| 952 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 20:04
|
Yes, Weykool. Thanks for the catch.
|
|
| |
| |
| 955 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 22:03
|
Er.. card.
|
|
| 956 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 24, 2011, 10:48
|
re 949: this reminded me of an article I had read about order in what people considered the chaos of pirates but I could not find it, I did find this about how the economies of pirate towns are booming.
|
|
| 957 | Boldwin
ID: 14520249 Fri, Jun 24, 2011, 11:11
|
It's not moral anarchy to muslims who can find chapter and verse on why they should rape and pillage the infidel.
Back in the day of classical piracy it was all done with sub rosa sponsorship or confederacy with governments and politicians/kings getting a cut. I guess you'd call privateering pretty organized in that sense. Not sure who in Somalia is getting a cut. Is there enuff of a government to stick their hand out?
|
|
| |
| 959 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 24, 2011, 17:38
|
Want to balance the budget? Do nothing. Literally--if Congress leaves the health care law alone, allows the Bush tax cuts to expire and allows the Medicare reimbursement rates to continue to kick in (all as currently allowed for in the law), the budget is balanced in about 6 years.
Chart from the CBO:
Meanwhile, the House GOP walked out of talks with the Dems about Congress paying bills they (Congress) already agreed to pay. Why? Because Republicans continue to call the elimination of some tax breaks as "tax increases." Essentially, they cannot bring themselves to increase the amount of revenue the government takes in, despite tax rates (and revenues) being the lowest in 50 years.
Trashing the economy of the United States to score political points is all the GOP can hope for to try to take over the White House.
|
|
| 960 | Boldwin
ID: 22532522 Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 23:06
|
The best presentation I've seen of the state of the GOP insiders' war against conservatism:I agree and consider the case proved by two examples from the last election. Here in Colorado, the TEA Party sponsored candidate won the Republican nomination for governor. He kicked butt and took names both at the caucuses/nominating convention AND in the statewide primary that followed. Note that this was after his main opposition [retired Congressman] self-destructed [and in the interest of clarity, I supported that person until he collapsed, having known him personally since before he was a Congressman]. The Republican Party in Colorado was not pleased. They tried to oust him after nomination, but could find no legal way to do so. The meeting between the TEA Party and the State Central Committee in Greeley was ….not a love fest.
The Party Central Committee convinced another Republican former Congressman to change his registration to Constitution Party, and cut a deal with them. They named the turncoat Congressman as their governor candidate. In return, the Republican Party diverted all their governor donors to the Constitution Party. Which was several orders of magnitude over any funds they had EVER collected before. And by getting more than 10% of the governor’s ballot, it meant automatic ballot access in the future for the Constitution Party without petitioning.
The Colorado Republican Party supported another party’s candidate for governor; knowing that it would mean that their own party’s candidate would lose, AND that an ultra-liberal Democrat would be elected governor. And that is what happened. The former Congressman changed stripes back to Republican a couple of weeks after the election. He now sits at the right hand of the Central Committee. The Constitution Party has automatic ballot access statewide now, and the Democrats have the governorship. Everybody is happy except for the TEA Party and the conservative base. The Institutional Republican Party considers the TEA Party and its own base as more the enemy than they consider Obama and the Democrats.
Example 2: Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. TEA Party supported, she defeated Congressman Mike Castle in the primaries to become the Republican nominee for the US Senate. Once again, she played by the rules and won. Castle, incidentally, is ideologically to the Left of almost all Democrats in Congress. While she was literally giving her victory speech primary night; Senator John Cornyn whose job it was to get her elected, pre-empted her with a national announcement that she would only get the legally required minimum funding from the party, AND no media. The national party worked against her at every opportunity, and Karl Rove [who worked for Castle and who despite claims of independence is a voice of the Institutional Republicans] spent the next couple of weeks on every national news program, every day, bashing the Republican candidate and boosting the Democrat Chris Coons. Coons won, with the help of the Republican Party; and they are quite happy with that.
Add to that the Republican Party’s support for Scozzafava [in reality a Leftist Democrat] over a Conservative Republican, and their support for Lisa Murkowski over their own party’s candidate for Senator for Alaska.
The Institutional Republican Party would gladly win the presidency next year, so long as their candidate is a RINO. If it is a conservative, they would rather have Obama re-elected. If they get their RINO president, they would rather not get control of the Senate, so that they have an excuse not to upset their gravy train. They will work with the Democrats to achieve those ends.
I want Obama out … and imprisoned. But I will not support a RINO/DIABLO who will continue Obama’s policies, or someone who is a declared enemy of the TEA Party. Otherwise I would be collaborating with the enemy. Has Bachmann cut a deal like our turncoat Congressman here in Colorado? Quite likely. I know that I absolutely do not trust her as long as Rollins is there, and maybe afterwards. And if the Republican Party keeps playing the same games attacking TEA Party supported winners; there will be a 3rd party, and the smallest will probably be the Republicans. Followed by this:Add “Murky” Murkowski in AK to that list.
And here in CA, Romney shoe horned his biggest fund raiser and contributor, Meg Whitman onto the top of the ticket (not that the alternative Republicans were any better and the Tea Party had nobody to get behind).
And even though Tea Party favorite Chuck Devore was leading in the polls, Palin/McCain stepped in and crammed another big liberal contributor Carly Fiorina onto the ticket. Fiorina might have won but Whitman was a really big dead weight to have on the top of the ticket. Both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer should have lost in a landslide but true to the Stupid Party, they made it close and then lost.
There is no reason why next year’s elections should be close. But the establishment GOP is not serious about winning. If they win, it will be with their own Democrat. If they lose, because it was close they will blame it on Tea Party conservatives. If a conservative wins, they will fight like hell to make sure he/she loses.
There is no other alternative for non-Democrats than to vote an independent candidate next year if the GOP insists on maintaining their tight little clique. All candidates are suspect. Only something bold like Trump threatening to run as an independent will change anything. - Commenters Subotai Bahadur and Pasadena Phil posting comments at a primo blog, Legal Insurrection
The GOP insiders somewhat coopted rising conservative star Palin by offering her the VP nomination. Then GOP insider Rollins poisons the well for Michelle Bachman by savaging Palin. Bachman thus loses Tea Party support. Also poisoning the unity Bachman would need when she gets the Palin treatment. No doubt further attempts will be made to cut her away from the conservatives, most likely they are hoping to offer her a VP slot under Romney to make the conservative threat to the globalist one-party system go away.
Bachman is tied with Romney before she even announces. She doesn't need Romney's VP offer, she doesn't need Rollin's and she needs the Tea Party a whole lot more than she needs the GOP.
|
|
| 961 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 23:59
|
What, exactly, is "conservative" about Palin? Or "Not a Witch" O'Donnell?
The assumption that the Tea Party candidates are the "conservative" ones is a far right meme that needs to be put to rest.
I don't doubt that the establishment GOP members will push back against new blood--even new blood with the backing of the Tea Party. But don't fool yourself that these upstarts, by and large, have purer conservative cred.
|
|
| 962 | Boldwin
ID: 22532522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 01:47
|
Yeah, what was I thinking? Palin and Bachman more conservative than Romney?
Lol!
|
|
| 963 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 08:49
|
Then the question should be easy: What makes Palin more "conservative" than Romney? Does that make Romney not conservative?
|
|
| 964 | Boldwin
ID: 22532522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 09:05
|
OMG this is the funniest exchange ever! Do you genuinely take this question seriously?
|
|
| 965 | Boldwin
ID: 22532522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 09:40
|
OMG, what part of these videos don't you get?
Palin:
"...we’re saying not just no, but hell no! --- Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back."
 Romney and birds of a feather celebrating Massachusetts' Romneycare signing socialized medicine into law.
|
|
| 966 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 12:39
|
Ah, finally a point is made! Palin is "more conservative" because she says she would not be for a health care law. To be clear, Romney, of course, states that he is against "ObamaCare" which is what Palin says she is against. Of course, Palin is against a mythical version of "Obamacare" in which "death panels" exist.
So being against a mythical health care law which was originally conceived by Republicans (without the death panels) is now the measure of being "conservative"?
Moving the conservative cred goalposts isn't a sign of a party with enduring values. Or virtue, for that matter.
|
|
| 967 | Boldwin
ID: 22532522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 13:39
|
Socialized medicine has never been conceived by conservatives, by definition. There is nothing as anti-conservative as socialism.
Nothing has moved.
|
|
| 968 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 13:42
|
The screed posted in 960 is a great example of being untethered to reality. According to those two geniuses, the US voters are 80% rock-ribbed conservatives and we should be living in a conservative utopia if it were not for the bungling and invidious Republican Party run by evil "insiders".
Oh, President Obama should be imprisoned. That's rich.
|
|
| 969 | Boldwin
ID: 22532522 Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 13:47
|
It wasn't the democrats who killed the Reagan Revolution. It was the Bush dynasty, GOP insiders, neocons. The Reagan Revolution works evertime it is tried.
|
|
| 970 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Jun 28, 2011, 10:45
|
Eric Cantor walks away from negotiations on raising the debt ceiling in a glaring conflict of interest.
When Eric Cantor shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations -- it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)
Nothing wrong with betting against America, actually, it's one of the modern conservatives most cherished positions. It's a whole different story when you're a leader in negotiations over what could crash the treasury market.
It's just another example of the concerted effort by Republicans and phony patriot conservatives to create havoc with the economy so they can blame it on Obama.
|
|
| 971 | Boldwin
ID: 47542289 Tue, Jun 28, 2011, 10:49
|
Yeah, Obama marxists are the real patriots.
|
|
| 972 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jun 28, 2011, 11:47
|
Insider trading is legal for members of Congress. Both sides do it.
|
|
| 973 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Jun 28, 2011, 22:23
|
Insider trading is legal for members of Congress. Both sides do it.
Insider trading is illegal for everyone. I have no idea why you would post such nonsense.
Yeah, Obama marxists are the real patriots.
I know, crazy, huh? Back when I was a kid in the 50's, Uncle Sam implored Americans to buy US savings bonds, because it was patriotic to invest in America. It wasn't the highest return in the investment world, but it was the safest and most reliable. Had any well known politician back then been discovered to be shorting US savings bonds, he would have been tarred and feathered and Boldwin's hero Joe McCarthy would have led to the charge to exile said politician to Siberia. Ironically, US savings bonds(we call them treasuries now) remain the safest, most reliable investment in the entire world, despite efforts by the phony patriots to destabilize them. Cantor should recuse himself from any negotiations regarding the debt ceiling, since he's the one who has adopted Bachmann's anti-American posture, not Obama. In fact, Obama should be lionized by the phony patriots for jumping in bed with the military industrial complex they idolize.
|
|
| |
| 975 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Jun 28, 2011, 23:45
|
Insider trading is not legal. However, as regards to Congress, it's mostly overlooked.
The SEC generally does not view trading on the basis of advance knowledge of Congressional action to be insider trading. Both House and Senate ethics manuals say that members of Congress are not supposed to make any personal profit from confidential knowledge, although no member of Congress has ever been publicly sanctioned for such trading. link
I will grant you the semantic victory. The situation with Cantor is not insider trading. It is conflict of interest. He is invested in an entity in which he is currently in a position to directly affect said entity. It doesn't matter if you think the Fed is corrupt and we should return to the gold standard, any more than it matters if I think the DEA is corrupt and we should be able to grow plants in our backyard and smoke them if we please.
|
|
| 976 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 08:01
|
B7, I don't get it. Are you saying that Cantor's behavior is acceptable because others do it?
|
|
| 977 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 11:09
|
Jon Kyl (among other Republicans) now against a payroll tax holiday.
The stated reason: "It won't do much."
The "tell" as it were, regarding the GOP plans to keep the economy spluttering for political reasons is that they are now against straightforward tax cuts it they can help Obama. In other words, if a tax cut has the possible benefit of actually working to improve the economy, they are not for it because Obama might get credit.
|
|
| 978 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 11:38
|
No, I think its a bad rule. Their top aids can do it, also. I'm not sure what they can do about it, though. Maybe, make them all use a blind trust.
|
|
| 979 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 13:04
|
That's a good idea. I believe that certain Executive Branch appointees are required to use blind trusts upon taking their jobs. Given that the Congress has their hands on the purse strings, it would seem to me that such a requirement would be even more needed for their members.
|
|
| 980 | sarge33rd
ID: 14592914 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 15:09
|
from 977: "The stated reason: "It won't do much.".."
Translation; "We were for it, before we were against it. And we are against it, because Obama is for it."
|
|
| 981 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 15:23
|
re 977: didn't you already post this story? you must really believe that payroll holiday is the greatest thing since the health care bill.
|
|
| 982 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 15:44
|
Nope--I posted a different one about Boehner. This one has the quote from Kyl, along with his earlier (contradictory) quote.
My point is not whether I think it is the greatest thing--it is that the GOP did. Until they seemingly realized that it would help Obama politically if the economy was in better shape. The more that the GOP gets into election mode, the more that are going to handcuff our economy.
|
|
| 983 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 01:24
|
Allen West:You know, this is not rocket scientry [sic]. But yet, when you listen to the debate last week that they had with the potential GOP presidential candidates in South Carolina, I gotta tell you, it scared the hell out of me. Because none of them really understood national security. None of them really, you know, understand these points.
|
|
| 984 | sarge33rd
ID: 5950308 Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 09:01
|
A gem from the Des Moines Register
Somewhat OT, somewhat not.....I think the article is 100% on the mark and something we all (including moi), need to bear in mind.
|
|
| 985 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 11:53
|
re 982: but i thought tax breaks don't work? I understand your point but at the same time for once they are actually doing the right thing and not just having a tax break, why waste money on something that is not going to help.
|
|
| 986 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 12:45
|
I think some tax breaks "work" and some don't. Obviously the first question to ask is: What do you want the tax break to accomplish? Answer that, and you'll be able to tell if the tax cut in question moves us toward the goal.
In this case, we are looking at pumping a little more money into the economy, and that is best accomplished by putting money into the hands of people more likely to spend it. A payroll tax cut should accomplish that goal.
Retaining Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? Not so much.
|
|
| |
| 988 | Boldwin
ID: 865219 Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 14:32
|
I'm all in for that last study. Reduce taxes and make spending cuts the entire solution.
|
|
| 989 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Tue, Jul 05, 2011, 10:36
|
BrooksIf the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
|
|
| 990 | walk
ID: 348442710 Tue, Jul 05, 2011, 13:55
|
Yeah, I read that one, too MITH. Interesting comments from many conservatives in that column. I think Brooks may be one of the few widely published conservatives who has the guts to criticize the republican party.
|
|
| 991 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Jul 05, 2011, 15:56
|
money quot: If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
And they will be right. (emphasis added)
|
|
| |
| 993 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Tue, Jul 05, 2011, 18:10
|
Re: 989
I agree with Garrett Epps' article Our National Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned,' the Constitution Says. The Republicans cannot hold our economy hostage, period. In fact, Epps' even wrote a speech that the President ought to make right here! It's excellent and in my mind you ensure reelection and serious Republican losses in the House in 2012.
For nearly a century and a half, the absolute language of the Fourteenth Amendment was not even questioned. I regret to say, however, that today our nation faces exactly the threat Section Four was designed to guard against. A vocal and determined political minority--what our great Founder James Madison would have called a "faction"--is determined to use its dominance in one House of Congress as a weapon to circumvent the democratic process. It wants to find a back-door way to undo programs and policies that have been democratically enacted over a 75-year period. It wants to impose a narrow vision of government and America that has been rejected by our people repeatedly over the same period.
This determined minority is now prepared to defy the Constitution to get its way. Some of its voices have begun to say that national default would be welcome, even if it wrecks our international credit and leads the U.S. to default not only on its bonded obligations but on the debts due to its armed forces in the field--debts that are even more sacred than "pensions and bounties for services" already performed by veterans in previous wars. Indeed, I am convinced that the only reason why the framers of Section Four did not explicitly include "payments to military personnel in the field during congressionally authorized military action" is that it was literally unthinkable even to the most hardened partisans among them that any faction within the United States Congress would countenance cutting off payments to those who carry our flag in foreign nations under hostile fire. Hell yeah!
|
|
| 994 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Jul 05, 2011, 18:14
|
*insert raucous applause here*
|
|
| 1000 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 13:16
|
Brooks is right, the Dems have caved.
raising the debt ceiling isn't (and never was) a controversial action. Bush approved the move seven times during his presidency, and the ultra conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an Obama-bashing right-wing-loyal business group, has come out strongly in favor of raising the ceiling.
|
|
| 1001 | Boldwin
ID: 96150 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 16:12
|
raising the debt ceiling isn't (and never was) a controversial action.
Which he knows full well isn't true today which is why he is seething lately.
I guess the audience he is appealing to believes words have a magical power and if enuff people deny reality and replace it with their own mantra some magical realism alternate universe will appear in it's place.
|
|
| 1002 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 16:30
|
Controversial? Saint Reagan (pdf) had no problem with the Congress raising the cash necessary to pay the bills they had already authorized to be paid.
|
|
| 1003 | Boldwin
ID: 96150 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 16:39
|
Politics is the art of the possible.
Actually forcing the country to live within it's means has never been possible before.
Maybe now that we are so close to the brink it can be done. Not if the RINO's have anything to say about it.
|
|
| 1004 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 16:49
|
The budget is what makes (or breaks) that. If Congress didn't want to have the budget it did, it shouldn't pass the budget it did. What the GOP wants to do is not pay its own bills.
Republicans all over the country went crazy over China saying that the global economy should not be "dollar-based." What do you think the value of the US dollar will be once we fail on our fiscal obligations?
I think, in a worst case, Obama will refuse to go along with the GOP's efforts to bully their way to a "my way or the highway" policy and declare the debt limit raised by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
|
|
| 1005 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 17:26
|
The mean but possibly awesome play would be to accept the debt limit in place, and prioritize spending however he wants to (and there's a LOT of play in "however he wants to").
Basically, pay the bills they want to with the money available, and don't pay the others (because, you know, Congress refuses to give him the cash to back up the checks they wrote). He's obligated to not bounce checks, right?
Sorry, defense contractors in heavily Republican districts, I've only got $20 and I can't pay you. Maybe next week (but probably not, we have Social Security checks to send out).
Roads need rebuilding? Sorry, red districts. Can't afford it, fly a kite.
It would be spiteful, amazing, and wholly understandable. A significant part of me would love to see what would happen if he took that route. I'd set the over/under on passing a new debt limit at about 36 hours.
|
|
| 1006 | Boldwin
ID: 96150 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 17:46
|
His personal post mortem.
I have to admit he is a very very very reluctant semi-conservative. But he does recognize and support some conservative positions. Tho he goes home and takes a shower after doing so.
Or maybe he just has to take those positions to retain his 'house conservative' status for the NYT.
Wow, with friends like these...not actually useful.
|
|
| 1007 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 17:57
|
"with friends like these"
These aren't friends. They are other conservatives.
Put another way, with more "friends" like these, you can make actual progress in the areas you say are important to you.
Instead of finding common ground, you spend an awful lot of time trying to find reasons not to listen to someone.
|
|
| 1008 | weykool
ID: 343561414 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 18:17
|
Shakes head at post #1005. It wouldnt suprise me to find out that DW actually thinks the President keeps a checkbook in his oval office drawer. Not sure who would make the decisions as to which bills get paid but I would imagine the CBO would have some say. The sad thing is, it is the vindictive partisan attitude on display in post #1005 that is leading the country to the brink of bankruptcy.
|
|
| 1009 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 18:42
|
Yeah, you're completely wrong as usual.
The President doesn't have a checkbook in his drawer. I'm not surprised you'd stretch a few miles to snipe at me and misrepresent my position like that, though -- that's your usual modus operandi, instead of trying to give an intelligent response.
Congress has imposed upon the executive branch of government a number of financial obligations which, by law, they are required to pay -- this is called a BUDGET RESOLUTION (I know this is a new term for you).
Congress also establishes the tax rates and laws by which the executive branch raises revenue.
Congress now asserts the authority to refuse to authorize the country to borrow to make up the difference.
All of these are indisputable facts.
So, what the hell else is the executive supposed to do? Don't have the money to pay them all, can't borrow money to pay them all -- stands to reason they must not want him to pay them all, right? And, guided by the Constitution, it's his right -- no, it's his OBLIGATION -- to pay what bills he can, in the order prescribed by the Constitution, and at his discretion within those boundaries.
I suppose you think he should just bounce checks to everyone? Or do you think he should simply not pay the bills you don't want him to pay, and pay the ones you want him to pay? (DRUDGE SIREN: HYPOCRISY ALERT.)
And, by the way, if you want to look at the vindictive partisan display ruining the country: you might also want to look to your Republican buddies in Congress who are putting the executive branch in a physically impossible position in the first place. Or, you know, a mirror. Either one's good.
But, for humor value only because I know you won't bother, please suggest how the executive is supposed to pay for the obligations imposed on him by Congress in this situation, without raising the debt limit, and while following the budget resolution that Congress passed which requires the executive, by law, to pay for the obligations that they have required him to pay for.
|
|
| 1010 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 18:48
|
And, as if it isn't obvious, I agree that my proposal in 1005 is a completely partisan approach to solving the problem, if you in turn agree that the problem is being imposed on him by people for completely partisan reasons in the first place.
I'm sure that, for equally politically partisan reasons, you think he should stop sending money to Planned Parenthood and to Social Security and to stuff like that, and keep funneling it to the defense contractors and keeping the brown people out. Fortunately IMO, that's not your decision.
|
|
| 1011 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 18:49
|
I agree, wk. And I don't think Obama would ever be so partisan as to withhold services to constituents represented by Republicans simply because he could.
|
|
| 1012 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 18:51
|
DW: That's a false analogy. The GOP isn't being partisan about the debt ceiling--it is being stupid. It is driven by a Tea Party wing which is bad on history and worse on math.
Being extreme isn't always the same as being partisan.
|
|
| 1013 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 19:00
|
Do you think they'd be doing this with a Republican in the White House? The 2001-2008 time period presents evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.
To be sure, there's a lot of that partisan hackery on both sides of the debate, a point which I readily concede -- but to pretend that most of the people opposing this are doing this because of a sudden revelation that the budget resolution they themselves passed a few months ago is completely untenable, and not because they want to stick it to Obama, is pretty much fairy-tale stuff that I'd expect better from you than to believe.
|
|
| 1014 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 19:01
|
I believe they would be doing this no matter who was in the White House. The House GOP has a long history of trying to solve the wrong problems.
|
|
| 1015 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 19:08
|
And, for the record (before someone else again decides to try to tell me what I believe, I think I may as well get it out there first), I don't think he'd do it either, and I don't think (from a purely moral perspective) that he should actually do it.
But, on the other hand, I also don't think Republicans should be using the debt limit to make a partisan political point.
|
|
| 1016 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 19:16
|
Re: 1014 -- so you believe Kyl would have made the same statement that you posted in 977 if a Republican were in the White House? There you seem to imply otherwise.
And to anticipate your response, no, these are not completely different things, they're both central to the economic health of the country (the debt limit more so by far, if they actually go through with this).
Sorry to catch you in a direct contradiction, but, well, there it is.
|
|
| 1017 | weykool
ID: 343561414 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 20:08
|
There is no budget for 2011/2012 so the president doesnt have the authority to pay anything until congress passes continuing resolutions to allow for bills to get paid. The problem here is the federal spending is out of control and the country lacks the presidential leadership to bring the two parties together to deal with the problems. Obama want to abdicate his responsibilities and kick the can down the road and raise the debt ceiling without fixing any of our problems. The vindictive name calling and partisan attitudes displayed on the boards and the rest of the media are not going to fix the problems. The Democrat's attitude is who cares what needs to be done to fix the problems, as long as we can assign blame to the Republicans then all is good.
|
|
| 1018 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 21:13
|
Yeah, you're still wrong as usual.
I could have sworn that they passed a continuing budget resolution in April 2011, which we are currently operating under. I guess I just imagined that. Oh, no, wait, here it is. Damn those Democrats for ramming that down the throat of the Republican-- oh, no, wait, most of them voted against it, and most of the Republicans voted for it.
It's really quite simple: They voted for legislation requiring expenditures, which they KNEW would require raising the debt limit to pay for it. And now they refuse to pay for it. I'm still waiting for a response as to what a president is supposed to do in that situation. I suspect I'll be waiting a while longer.
As for the "lack of presidential leadership": you're right. He should tell the Republicans to shove it up their collective asses and not raise the debt limit. Of course, then you'd blame him for not being willing to compromise ("compromise" being the current code word for "do exactly as we say or else", according to the current Republican leadership.)
And, amazingly, you're actually right about the vindictive name calling and partisan attitudes, which are coming from both sides. Of course, you managed to eke that out while solely blaming the Democrats for all the problems. That's impressive -- usually it's difficult to be so hypocritical in just ONE post. Give yourself a cookie.
As for the Democrat's attitude -- one could equally well say the Republican's attitude is who cares what will actually fix the problem, let's stick it to the marxist Muslim Kenyan fake-president. But I don't see you ever having any problems with that on these boards, so I guess you can include yourself in the vindictive partisan display that's ruining the country.
|
|
| 1019 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 21:17
|
Posted separately to again solicit an explanation from you:
You are required, by law, to spend $100. You are given, by law, $80. You are forbidden, by law, from borrowing the other $20.
Devise a scenario by which you can follow all three laws simultaneously.
|
|
| 1020 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 22:41
|
WK: The government is required to pay its obligations--the current year's budget doesn't really matter so much on (for example) t-bills and other pre-current fiscal year obligations.
We can, of course, argue about how to fix out debt problem. I prefer a mix of spending cuts and increases in revenue, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the GOP is trying to force the Democrats to accept a narrow policy question, without negotiation, and want to hold the hostage the full faith and credit of the United States government in order to do so. All the while, getting egged on by the hardest of their hardcore as though defaulting on our debts will have no consequences.
In their efforts to score political points, they are willing to drag down this country economically. And that is wrong. And much, much more wrong than anything the Democrats are doing right now.
|
|
| 1021 | Boldwin
ID: 96150 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 22:45
|
You are required, by law, to spend $100
I don't think that statement is correct. It doesn't work like that.
I'd like to see how they'd prosecute the president for 'impoundment of appropriated funds' which did not exist.
|
|
| 1022 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 22:47
|
Okay, fine, for the sake of not arguing silly semantics, rephrase slightly as "You are required to do X, Y, and Z by law... and we all know these things cost $100".
|
|
| 1023 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 23:27
|
Federal revenues 2.2 trillion Interest on federal debt 420 billion They're not close to defaulting unless they choose to.
|
|
| 1024 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 01:00
|
Defaulting meant refusing to pay when the bond payments are due. A government shutdown would prevent payments from going out (in fact, the GOP is using the threat to try to force their way).
You know, I think, that when the bond is due that it is more than just the interest, right?
Also, Social Security, by law, is required to purchase t-bills with its surplus. If the government doesn't pay when the bonds are due, Social Security has no revenue with which to pay out checks.
|
|
| 1025 | weykool
ID: 963670 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 01:36
|
If they are only required to invest the surplus then the rest of the money would be used to pay current obligations. 120 billion SS revenue coming in. 100 billion in obligations/payments due recipients. Only 20 billion would need to be invested. As for the principle due on the bond...they just roll it over into another bond.
PD you are entitled to your opinion. Others have the opinion the government has more than enough revenue to pay for the things it should be doing. Giving the government more money to spend through tax increases will only increase the deficit. Whenever they get 100 billion more they spend 120 billion. In addition raising taxes right now will only make a bad economy worse. Your attitude that only your opinion is the correct opinion is getting to be very egotistical.
|
|
| 1026 | Boldwin
ID: 96150 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 01:39
|
A government shutdown would prevent payments from going out
Where do you find that? Link?
There are all kinds of essential services that still get checks cut for them in a shutdown. Why wouldn't the bond payments go out the same way the SS checks would?
|
|
| 1027 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 02:05
|
Non-essential work would not get done. Social Security is fine for the very short term, but medium to long term there will be huge problems.
Ironically (to me): Members of the military are not considered "essential" government employees and therefore would not get paid. Congress would, however. Go figure.
Keep in mind that we reached the debt limit in May, and have been squeaking along with the revenue we've taken in (a little higher than expected, with the recovery). But early next month comes $90 billion in bonds that will mature, and $23 billion in Social Security payments, for which we will need to borrow to cover.
Not paying, even for one day, is a recovery-ending event.
|
|
| 1028 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 02:34
|
What recovery?
|
|
| 1029 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 02:53
|
Ah, right--I forgot. You are under the impression that up is down. My bad. For the rest of us, the recovery, though partially anemic, exists. It is how we went from being in a recession to not being in one.
|
|
| 1030 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:13
|
Yeah riiiiight, applied for any jobs lately?
|
|
| 1031 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:23
|
Unemployment is down since Obama took office, not up. Stock market is way up. We are officially out of a recession.
I know you find it politically convenient (i.e., intellectually lazy) to harp on bad news while a Democrat is in the White House, but there exists a whole other complicated world out there. The economy is slowly recovering despite your Downer Debbie alter ego.
Of course, if the GOP has its way the economy will be totally screwed in order to score political points. Yay!
|
|
| 1032 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:31
|
It's still a depression to the ~20% who are unemployed or underemployed such as yours truly. I don't particularly care if Geico's stock prices have recovered. And even if the numbers have barely climbed above the red to technically qualify as an ended recession, for all real purposes for all real families, it's still at best a recession.
I hesitate to flesh out just how bad it is at the risk of discouraging the job seekers among us.
|
|
| 1033 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:59
|
"Our president has failed us. The recession is deeper because of our president," Romney told a cheering audience after shaking hands at a July 4th parade, adding, "it has seen an anemic recovery because of our president." "How you like me now?" ~Mitt RomneyThere are 2 million fewer private-sector jobs now than when Obama was sworn in, and the unemployment rate is 1.5 percentage points higher.
• There are now more long-term unemployed than at any time since the government started keeping records.
• The U.S. dollar is more than 12% weaker.
• The number of Americans on food stamps has climbed 37%.
• The Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) is up 62%.
• And the national debt is about 40% higher than it was in January 2009.
In fact, reporters who bother to look will discover that Obama has managed to produce the worst recovery on record. - IBD
|
|
| 1034 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 15:29
|
and Conservatives who bother to be honest, will admit that the stimulus PREVENTED approx 2 million MORE people from losing their jobs, who otherwise would have. (Predominantly, LE, Fire, Teachers etc)
|
|
| 1035 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 15:57
|
Kinda funny that conservatives are pretending to care about the dollar, yet threatening to trash the currency unless the Democrats save the wealthy from having to spend a fair share of taxes.
|
|
| 1036 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:09
|
Liberals who actually believe in sharing might ask themselves why the public sector can't share the recession along with the rest of us. Why should they be immune?
|
|
| 1037 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:26
|
I will never ever forget the teachers marching around our county capitol for a pay raise in the middle of a depression/recession without an iota of sympathy or fellow feeling for the struggling average man.
You got a depression? FU
|
|
| 1038 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:32
|
"Liberals who actually believe in sharing might ask themselves why the public sector can't share the recession along with the rest of us. Why should they be immune?"
Somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the changes proposed by Democrats are in the form of spending decreases as opposed to tax cuts... so, yeah.
And, considering the teachers are probably going to get screwed out of future pension obligations at some point, probably a good move to get more up front. I'd actually be totally OK with eliminating future pensions, assuming you'd be totally OK with giving them the net present value of those pensions in the form of salary increases right now.
|
|
| 1039 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:38
|
From everything I've read, public sector employees have taken a bigger beating in this recession than private sector workers, both in terms of compensation and in terms of layoffs.
|
|
| 1040 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:45
|
From everything I've read, public sector employees have taken a bigger beating
No they just pretend a recession is historic human rights abuse when it happens to them.
|
|
| 1041 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:46
|
When you actually look at the numbers, your freak-out is off base.
|
|
| 1042 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 16:58
|
Can I just copy and paste post 1041 from now on? That'll save time. Royalty checks will be in the mail.
|
|
| 1043 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:04
|
10 Facts
"The public sector is now shedding around 25,000 jobs per month, largely due to budget cuts at the state and local level. Since the official end of the recession, the public sector has lost 430,000 net jobs, while the private sector has added 980,000 net jobs. In other words, more than 40% of the private-sector job gains in this recovery have been canceled out by job losses in the public sector."
|
|
| 1044 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:08
|
Iowa Study
When education, work experience, annual hours worked, race, sex, disability status, and firm size are accounted for, male public-sector workers earn nearly 12 percent less and female public-sector workers earn over 16 percent less than private-sector workers. Male state government workers earn 9 percent less than comparable workers in private industry, while for local government the public-sector wage penalty was 14 percent. Among women, the earnings penalty was over 13 percent for state workers and 19 percent for local government workers. Many critics have argued that it is not public-sector pay that is so out-of-line, but rather public-sector benefits, such as health insurance and pension contributions. It is true that such benefits comprise a larger share of public employees’ overall compensation than for most private-sector workers. However, even after adding these benefits into the mix, total compensation for Iowa’s male and female public employees are 7.9 percent and 10.8 percent less, respectively, than for their private-sector counterparts. The gap between private and public compensation narrows to 6 percent and 8 percent among male and female state government workers, and 9 percent and nearly 13 percent for male and female local government employees.
|
|
| 1045 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:19
|
Fill in the blanks. "Those who can _______. Those who can't _________."
What percentage of the stimulus was designed to insulate the public sector from the recession?
The lion's share.
|
|
| 1046 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:23
|
The lion's share was tax breaks.
|
|
| 1047 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:28
|
And it's self-evident that people such as teachers and firemen, people paid by to do hard jobs by the government, would benefit by the portion of the stimulus used to soften the blow to state and local governments, who are forced to layoff those folks at a time of declining revenue.
In other words, stating the obvious is not particularly enlightening. Nor is it damning.
|
|
| 1048 | Boldwin
ID: 4463171 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:37
|
You can't claim it stimulated the 'private sector added 980,000 net jobs...
...when it didn't go there.
|
|
| 1049 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:41
|
Fill in the blanks. "Those who can _______. Those who can't _________."
Make productive lives for themselves Bitch about people who are doing.
You'd think if it's such an easy job and they make so much money, you'd be trying to do that instead of complaining about unemployment on a message board.
|
|
| 1050 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 17:41
|
It did go there. Not as much as it should have, but it did go there.
I would have done a massive infrastructure rebuild/update programs along the lines of a 1.5 trillion, going mainly to private contractors. Instead we got an anemic, what, $600 billion, which didn't even balance out the losses at the state and local level. There was effectively no stimulus, except for the banks and Wall Street.
|
|
| 1051 | Boldwin
ID: 3669811 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 12:19
|
which didn't even balance out the losses at the state and local level.
*boggle*
So your in your view we can actually just print and borrow, papering our way over a downturn until there is no market signal left at all, no correction, no job loss. Just balance it all out. Wallah!
|
|
| 1052 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 12:37
|
You don't appear to have any conception of what a stimulus is, or hoped to accomplish.
|
|
| 1053 | Boldwin
ID: 3669811 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 14:48
|
What pray tell does "which didn't even balance out the losses at the state and local level" mean?
|
|
| 1054 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 14:56
|
It means the we lost a lot of revenue at the state and local government level that was needed to pay salaries to teachers, cops and firemen, among others. The stimulus partially compensated for this drop in revenue, but did little else. Saving jobs, but not creating much.
|
|
| 1055 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 15:16
|
But bili, according to the Republicans in the House/Senate...keeping people OFF unemploymnet, wasnt helpful to the economy. (No clue from where they derive that conclusion.)
|
|
| 1056 | Boldwin
ID: 3669811 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 18:53
|
I am at a complete loss as to why they deserve to be recession proof.
|
|
| 1057 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 19:07
|
They aren't.
|
|
| 1058 | Boldwin
ID: 3669811 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 19:12
|
In bili's world they would be.
|
|
| 1059 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 19:41
|
Good gawd B, do you truly not see where mass layoffs of LE, Firfefighters and Educators; could be MASSIVELY detrimental to the very society of which they are part?
Just a wee bit more vital IMHO, than many other job titles, particularly in the private sector.
|
|
| 1060 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 21:30
|
Meh, he's probably just mad because not all of them got fired.
|
|
| 1061 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 01:12
|
Oh DW, you mean he's mad because the stimulus DID work. Yep, I think most Republicans ARE PO'd about that.
|
|
| 1062 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 08:47
|
Baldwin - until you demonstrate you understand what a stimulus is and what it's intended effects, I'm going to assume, based on overwhelming evidence, you have absolutely no clue.
Playing tennis with someone holding a lacrosse stick is not much fun. You beat them soundly, and they just scream "But I caught it!".
|
|
| 1063 | Boldwin
ID: 18627821 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 09:23
|
Yeah we Heyak students feel the exact same way about you Keynes students.
Wish you were conversant enuff with the issues to discuss the points in these two videos which come at you quickly but which serious people follow.
Video#1
Video#2
Not comedy, these are the volumes of competing economy theory which conservatives and liberals are at odds over.
Economy is all about the messaging system inherently guiding the monetary system. Sadly Keyesian economics sends all the wrong messages. Often the exact opposite of the message needed.
I'd like a few people here to get up to speed so we could have a reasonable discussion, if that's possible in today's 'post-partisan Obama nirvana.
|
|
| 1064 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 09:37
|
I'm not going to watch your videos (that's not how I learn, in general. Too much bias introduced from the quality and knowledge level of the speaker, not enough emphasis on actual on content), but I've done some reading on Heyak's theories in the past. They are nice candy, and on a high-level you almost want to believe it.
But when you get down to the actual mathematics, there is no there there.
And when you look at periods in history when they are tried, you see completely opposite effects from what you would intuitively expect.
|
|
| 1065 | Boldwin
ID: 18627821 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 10:19
|
Reagan was the only Heyak president ever [with the possible exception of JFK] and he started America's greatest bull market run ever with it...starting from Carter's miasma.
So naturally you are sure it wouldn't work now.
|
|
| 1066 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 10:45
|
He did so after (gasp!) raising taxes. And borrowing heavily, which doubled out debt.
|
|
| 1067 | Boldwin
ID: 18627821 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 11:22
|
It was the bull market he created which blew the revenues up thru the roof.
|
|
| 1068 | Boldwin
ID: 18627821 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 11:58
|
So funny too, get smart liberals talking between themselves about Reagan and eventually they will describe his strategy as 'Starving The Beast'.
Which PD tries to repackage and sell to non-liberals as 'Reagan was a tax raiser'. Too funny.
|
|
| 1069 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 12:30
|
ummm...most honest Conservatives I have spoken with, ALSO define Reagan as a "tax raiser". It was afterall, the very HOW, he balanced the CA budget when he was Gov.
|
|
| 1070 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 14:10
|
Deep into de-Nile.
|
|
| 1071 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jul 09, 2011, 14:13
|
This is to say nothing of the fact that tax rates, under Reagan, were much higher for both the top and bottom income levels. If we want to get back to Reagan-era taxation levels, we'll need to go up, not down.
|
|
| 1072 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 05:58
|
You are aware the president doesn't control the purse strings, but rather the House does?
Find me where he even once said 'what we need is a healthy tax increase'.
Who do you think is buying your BS?
|
|
| 1073 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 06:02
|
There isn't one Reagan fan in the country who is going to be fooled into thinking Reagan was a big taxer or in favor of higher taxes. No one who says 'Government isn't the solution to our problems, Government is the problem' could possibly be.
So I ask you, what is the point of your dissembling on the subject? To discourage another round of Reagan Democrat party jumping? Maybe you can fool some democrats?
|
|
| 1074 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 06:09
|
You can't even make the specious argument that he wanted higther taxes to pay down the national debt. He was a big believer that lowering taxes raised tax revenues by stimulating the economy and the pool of taxable income. He introduced Laffer Curve into the national debate.
I'm not fooled for a fraction of a nanosecond by your BS on this subject, PD.
|
|
| 1075 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 07:56
|
You bring up the laffer curve as anything but a subject of ridicule? You don't even have to do the math, which pretty clearly states the obvious absurdity of the laffer curve. All you have to do is go back to the Bush tax cuts and the subsequent steep revenue plunge to see a recent, real life example of the silliness.
Next you'll be holding up trickle down economics as something other than a massive joke.
|
|
| 1076 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 12:43
|
Bili, you forget that judging by their public rhetoric, most conservatives (i.e. the ones that are corporate shills), the actual equation for the Laffer Curve is y = 1/x.
Even Laffer's own (made-up) chart (it's not exactly a mathematical fact) notes that at some point when you lower taxes, you get lower revenue. Apparently it's verboten to mention that we have moved well onto the left side of the peak though, because that would mean that the Republican corporate overlords would have less money, and we can't have that, because they're doing such a wonderful job of driving the economy right now.
Strange how nobody on the right wing ever asks the wealthy "Hey guys, with the lowest tax rates in history, why the hell aren't you guys creating any jobs? I mean, you've had like half a decade to do it... where are they?"
|
|
| 1077 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 12:56
|
Cause nobody wants to hear the truth, "We're FAR too busy hoarding our dollars to bother with hiring anyone. Besides, that damnabale minimum wage thing REALLY pisses me off."
|
|
| 1078 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 17:52
|
Eliminating the arbitrary minimum wage would create jobs in this country.
|
|
| 1079 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 17:57
|
Actually, it wouldn't create any jobs, but would push down wages for the working class. And widen the income gap between the wealthy and the working poor.
Better be prepared to weave a larger social safety net if you want government to start taking over essential services for the working poor (like buying their food) if you allow businesses to start paying them as little as possible. In this current job market, the only thing that will happen with wages for those struggling most is that they will go down.
|
|
| 1080 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 19:26
|
Common sense and the laws of supply and demand say otherwise.
|
|
| 1081 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 19:43
|
Because, clearly, common sense dictates that people will work for not enough money to get them indulgent luxuries like food and shelter.
|
|
| 1083 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 20:03
|
Even if it did increase the total number of employed people what would be the benefit? Expanding the ranks of the working poor by creating a new tier on the low end? Are you under the impression that businesses would increase their ranks to produce more and increase services for the same demand or less?
Common sense and the laws of supply and demand say otherwise.
Hilarious! The right has abandoned common sense in it's committment to this ridiculous golden calf of low taxes for thr rich. What the law of supply and demand says is that businesses add to their workforces when demand calls for it. Period.
How the right wing noise machine has managed to convince millions upon millions of Americans that current high unemployment is due to overtaxed and overregulated businesses is possibly the greatest hoax in all of history. Businesses are taxed less than they've been in half a century. Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage is nowhere near it's historic high level, and was at it's historic low as recently as 2006.
|
|
| 1084 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 20:14
|
Common sense and the laws of supply and demand say otherwise
Having higher number of people making less money each is not very valuable to anyone except the bean counters.
Like MITH, I really can't understand how the Right has suddenly taken leave of its ability to process both history or mathematics. Our budget shortfalls (which they claim is the #1 problem in this country) was put into place almost entirely by increases in defense spending and dropping tax rates for the rich, which they claimed would both help the economy and create jobs.
It did neither. So rather than fix the causes, their claim is now that the poor somehow need to take another hit.
|
|
| 1085 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:12
|
the Right has suddenly taken leave of its ability to process both history or mathematics.
That from the left who spent so much time demonizing America for slave labor 150 years ago, that they were too busy to notice they were clearing the field for slave labor in communist countries rising in world dominance.
Did you think globalists would pay UAW wages when they homogenize the world?
|
|
| 1086 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:21
|
I don't think a defense of post-emancipation labor conditions makes for a very persuasive chalenge to PD's assessment of wingnutter history and math.
|
|
| 1087 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:32
|
And I don't think people who live to make the world safe for marxism make very persuasive opponents of 'higher number of people making less money each' in PD's words.
|
|
| 1088 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:48
|
post 1087: you could have stopped after the first four words, and you would finally have been accurate about something in this thread.
|
|
| 1089 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:56
|
^5 Tree
|
|
| 1090 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 23:47
|
All I said was eliminating the arbitrary minimum wage would create jobs in this country. And then Permdud said it wouldn't, and then seemed to retract that in #1084. If you want to create jobs, that would be one solution. But, in typical fashion, you liberals go into anti-Republican talking point mode, and there will be no discussion. I don't see why if I want to hire someone for $6 per hour, and they want to work for $6 per hour, what the problem is, or how that is even the federal government's business. But, I think there is a thread on the minimum wage where I've already made these points.
|
|
| 1091 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 00:48
|
There are few American citizens willing to work for $6.
See: Georgia farmers plowing their fields under for lack of labor to pick the crops. At over 9% unemployment.
|
|
| 1092 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 01:00
|
I didn't retract anything. I merely said that even if you are correct that more jobs would be created, that having higher number of people making less money fixes no current problems, and makes the problems we do have worse.
Fixing the wrong problems (overpaid minimum wagers, voting fraud, oppressed heterosexual marriages) seems to be a right wing speciality these days.
|
|
| 1093 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 09:25
|
So you don't think eliminating the arbitrary minimum wage would create jobs in this country. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Fixing voting fraud is a bad idea? If there's not a paper trail / audit trail, you invite all kinds of fraud.
|
|
| 1094 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 10:05
|
My point is that creating poorer jobs doesn't fix any problem we currently have. It doesn't matter if we have more jobs if they all get paid virtually nothing.
In fact, as I've pointed out before, driving down wages will actually increase debt, since the government will be providing more social net services for those people who suddenly find their wages slashed.
As for voting fraud, there is no widespread voting fraud problem in this country, despite Bush's Justice Department spending millions of dollars looking for it.
|
|
| 1095 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 10:56
|
I guess the country is caught between a rock in hard place if creating low wage jobs only makes things worse and creating high paying jobs is impossible.
|
|
| 1096 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 12:01
|
We aren't creating anything except problems if we (say) halve someone's pay and use the other half to pay someone else.
The "rock" in this case is the refusal of the wealthy to give up their undeserved tax breaks.
|
|
| 1097 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 12:18
|
Thosde who believe thye min wage is a propblem, I ask this:
What posisble good is acheived, by creating two jobs, worked by a husband and a wife; yielding insufficient net income to pay rent, utilities and buy food for their family?
You and everyone reading this knows for a fact, if Wally World (or insert name of any other company here) didnt HAVE to pay $X/hr minimum, they wouldnt. Instead, in times like these where available work force grossly exceed availablke work...corporate profits would soar as labor costs were slashed by ever decreasing wage payments.
|
|
| 1098 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 12:53
|
That sucking sound you hear, is the jobs being moved to China.
|
|
| 1099 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 12:55
|
free market? That sucking sound WE hear, is corporate America draining the lifes blood from their home nation.
|
|
| 1100 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 14:46
|
The "rock" in this case is the refusal of the wealthy to give up their undeserved tax breaks.
tell me exactly how that effects things? tell me how all these new high paying jobs will be created if the wealth give up all there tax breaks?
You and everyone reading this knows for a fact, if Wally World (or insert name of any other company here) didnt HAVE to pay $X/hr minimum, they wouldnt. Instead, in times like these where available work force grossly exceed availablke work...corporate profits would soar as labor costs were slashed by ever decreasing wage payments.
i think there are some farms that will pay they $14 which twice min wage they could go do.
free market? That sucking sound WE hear, is corporate America draining the lifes blood from their home nation.
how is that? maybe you prefer a non-free market where we have to pay twice as much for goods and have half the selection?
|
|
| 1101 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 15:07
|
tell me exactly how that effects things? tell me how all these new high paying jobs will be created if the wealth give up all there tax breaks?
I've pointed out, in this thread and others, that the current deficit is largely traced to the revenue shortfall by the bush tax cuts, as well as the costs associated with the War on Terror. Allowing those cuts to expire will bring in more revenue.
I can tell you this: lowing the wages for those few who have jobs would be an economic disaster. You think people are having a hard time right now keeping things going?
|
|
| 1102 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 15:16
|
Boikin, the easy answer to your query is that such a tax restructuring (along with further cuts for lower and middle income families) would stimulate demand of common consumer products and services, which somebody has to make. The reason it's not brilliant to start something up right now is that the middle class families are scared shitless and are afraid to buy anything, and the unemployed are definitely not buying anything, so there's little demand for product. Right now, creating the world's awesomest widget is kind of worthless, because nobody has the money to buy any widgets anyway.
|
|
| 1103 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 16:00
|
re 1101: that does not answer the question of how it creates more jobs. while a high deficit is not good for the country it is not directly linked to job creation.
Boikin, the easy answer to your query is that such a tax restructuring (along with further cuts for lower and middle income families) would stimulate demand of common consumer products and services, which somebody has to make.
will these jobs be in this country? If not then really you have done nothing to increase wealth you will actually just shipped more of it out of the country.
I am not saying that taxes should not be restructured but don't delude yourself into thinking that they some kind panacea that will make everything better.
The question you need to ask yourself is not what can we do to make Americans buy more stuff but what can we do to make everyone else buy more American stuff.
|
|
| 1104 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 16:30
|
American stuff, made in China, makes no difference how much of it other people buy. Americans will by and large, be left in the toilet economically.
Make no mistake, the American economy is consumer driven. The more we as a society consume, the more robust our economy is. Right now, the poor can barely (if then) afford to feed themselves. The middle class, is losing its place to sleep out of the rain; and the wealthy are crying for more and more tax breaks even as they are driving to the Country Club for dinner.
The wealthy are at the moment, getting a comparative "free ride", born on the backs of Americas working poor. (And dont bother showing my how many $$ in taxes the top 5% paid. How many people COULD they have fed, had they created jobs with those tax breaks {as has been the Republican claim, false though it has been shown to be} vs buying a 3rd vacation home?)
Want to fix our economy? It is really a fairly simple thing to do....HIRE people. Put them to work, suddenly consumer confidence climbs. A confident consumer......guess what they do? Thats right..they CONSUME. SO the fix? Screw this quarters P&L, hire till you are at the break even point.....no profit, no loss. Watch consumerism sky rocket the following quarter.
|
|
| 1105 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 16:48
|
#1103: A high deficit has a secondary effect on good job creation. And there is a long lag time for that as well.
Our #1 problem in this country, by far, is job creation. I'm absolutely willing to drive up our deficit to create jobs, particularly since:
1. Creating jobs more quickly will mean higher revenues faster
2. Much of our deficit problem is a revenue problem. If the national GOP wasn't so fixated on "starving the beast" we would have very little of a deficit problem right now.
|
|
| 1106 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:10
|
Make no mistake, the American economy is consumer driven.
and guess what that does not produce wealth that just spreads it around, in different ways. consumption does not create wealth trading for more than you give up creates wealth and jobs other wise you are going to be trying to divide up an ever diminishing pie to more and more people.
PD - you still have not answered how higher tax rates will create more jobs. And since you can't I will. The only way higher tax rates create more jobs is by allowing the government to hire more people whether they are building new roads or making more bombs(it should be noted that bomb makers get paid more than road builders).
|
|
| 1107 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:14
|
"....does not produce more wealth."
True. The ONLY thing that "produces" more wealth, would be a printing press, specific types of paper/ink and some damn fine plates from whwich to print. ALL spending in an economy, is a means of transferring "wealth" from party.group "A" to party/group "B". Hell even in a barter system, this holds true.
|
|
| 1108 | Boldwin
ID: 426151116 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:32
|
What posisble good is acheived, by creating two jobs, worked by a husband and a wife; yielding insufficient net income to pay rent, utilities and buy food for their family?
Globalists are happy to homogenize the wages of the USA and Sudan. Slave labor wages don't hurt their profit margins any.
Idealists like SZ think it's the fair thing to do. He's not even interested in a slow glide path down to that level.
Simplify your lives. Your unalloyed faith in change is about to be tested.
|
|
| 1109 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:35
|
Globalists? Anyone have that one a square?
PD - you still have not answered how higher tax rates will create more jobs.
I never said that they would. I said that rolling back the federal tax rates for the wealthiest citizens to the rates they were in the Clinton Administration would solve much of our deficit problem.
|
|
| 1110 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:39
|
I had globalists, but it didn't really help any.
Of course, the true globalists are the corporations that are moving out. But of course, they're businesses, so it's to be expected and glorified by our resident corporate shill.
Really, it's not worth responding to except to mock, note the progression to Bingo, and move on to more intelligent conversation.
|
|
| 1111 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 18:27
|
re 1108....in what way, if any, did your remarks address the italicized part of your post, wherein you quote my previous statement?
|
|
| 1112 | Boldwin
ID: 426151116 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 18:54
|
There are some parties, [not friendly to my interests or yours], who are just thrilled with the "posisble good is acheived, by creating" [your words in #1097 - B]...[spreading poverty around to you and me]
|
|
| |
| 1114 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 11:17
|
12 yrs ago (or there abouts), they repeated the mistakes of 1929 when they repealed Glass-Steagall and emplaced Graham-Leach-Bliley. Be pretty much right on time, to repeat 1937. (We all know, the Tea Party ilk dont know their history for shiite.)
|
|
| |
| 1116 | walk
ID: 348442710 Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 08:49
|
NYT, Brooks: Road not Taken
David Brooks, part 2, bashing (lamenting, really) of how his party is failing to take advantage of a potentially historic opportunity, due to a select few. This op-ed will cause another stir in the blogosphere like his earlier one. Coming on the heels of Douthat's piece yesterday, this is an interesting 1-2 punch. I do believe Boehner, who is one of the practical conservatives to which Brooks speaks, must be quite frustrated at the current situation. It is truly unreal what Obama is offering, and what the republicans are not taking, a lot because of the pledges and oaths they have taken to the nation of norquist.
|
|
| |
| 1118 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:11
|
Hope the Reps are having fun with their current majority. It will soon disappear, with these hateful actions of theirs.
|
|
| 1119 | walk
ID: 348442710 Wed, Jul 20, 2011, 11:00
|
Cut Spending, but not in my District
Something we've heard before (that Rachel Maddow has discussed on TV), but seems a bit more salient now.
|
|
| 1120 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Wed, Jul 20, 2011, 11:53
|
typical
|
|
| |
| 1122 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 00:34
|
First Herman Cain plays the race card (#954) and now Allen West, who claims the backlash over his comments toward Wasserman Schultz is because he is a black conservative:People who are black conservatives — I grew up in the inner city, strong vavlues, came from a strong military family and background — what we do is we totally invalidate the liberal social welfare policies and programs. I’m a threat because I’m the guy that got off of their 21st century plantation. And they cannot afford to have a strong voice such as mine out there reverberating and resonating across this country. [...] That’s why all of a sudden you have about four or five different websites that went up today saying that Allen West hates women, which having been married for 22 years to a woman with an MBA and a PhD and having two beautiful daughters, that to me is the epitome of the falsification of the truth.“
|
|
| 1123 | The Clap
ID: 41613226 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 07:13
|
So what if they play the race card? The left has been doing that since inception.
|
|
| 1124 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 07:23
|
Inception of what?
Race-hustling is a tawdry way to deflect criticism, wherever it comes from. Thanks to Alan Keyes and these two jokers, we now have a nbona-fide double standard.
|
|
| 1125 | walk
ID: 348442710 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 09:05
|
NYT, Norquist Op-Ed
Interesting read directly from a key player in the current deficit, debt, budget impasse.
|
|
| 1126 | The Clap
ID: 067228 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 09:07
|
I am quite certain that if I searched this forum I would find ample examples of you proactively condemning liberals of the same thing.
|
|
| 1127 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 09:16
|
I'm not certain I understand your point. Is there no stand you can make on whether doing it is right or wrong?
|
|
| 1128 | Mith
ID: 46121210 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 12:49
|
The Clap (with no disrespect intended, perhaps you chose your forum name a little hastily?) I do try to be objective but we're human and the incliniation isn't always there. So you got me a little curious, myself, and I searched the forum for the term race card to see if I've charging any liberals with playing the race card. Search returned about 20 threads. I went through more than half and there were no instances of me using that term or even involved in the discussion about it, except for this one. In fact my references to it in this thread are rare in that the overwhelming majority of the "s/he's playing the race card" accusations are tossed about (quite liberally, in fact) by right side of this forum.
|
|
| 1129 | The Clap
ID: 067228 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 12:55
|
So in other words you admit to not holding liberals to the same standard then since you cannot find an example of you calling them out for the same thing?
|
|
| 1130 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 12:59
|
lol, wat?
Logic fail in progress here.
|
|
| 1131 | Mith
ID: 46121210 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 13:47
|
you admit to not holding liberals to the same standard
No. I'd say the small sample size of one thread provides insufficient data. Actually I think most people here would point out that I'm known to occassionally challenge or question charges of racism, including when they come from the left side of this forum.
If you'd like me to provide an example of a liberal flipping that card, I could head over to the conservative website of my choice and search "Sheila Jackson". Expoitation of racial tensions is well within the shame threshold of both sides. It just happens to be a traditionally more convenient or available tactic for the left. That's moving toward correcting itself as the GOP has and continues to become more ethnically integrated and you'll be able to enjoy increasing new opportunities to make hypocrites of themselves.
Cain and West are pioneers in this regard. In their conservative version it comes off a bit more measured and with a terrific wingnutter twist: a bizarre belief that their ethnicity completely disrupts and disproves the American left's social ideology.
|
|
| 1132 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 13:51
|
I'm still trying to figure out what the standard is, exactly. TC seems content to charge "liberals" with hypocrisy without even stating whether playing the race card is good or bad.
I can understand the reluctance of stepping into the clear trap of having to say that conservatives have done something objectively wrong. But accusing liberals of not holding to a standard seems like a leap coming from someone clearly trying to avoid apply that same standard to himself.
|
|
| 1133 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 13:51
|
box???
|
|
| 1134 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 18:25
|
a bizarre belief that their ethnicity completely disrupts and disproves the American left's social ideology.
Well of course it does. These guys don't need you holding their hand to succeed.
|
|
| 1135 | Tree
ID: 26482217 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 18:48
|
And by succeed, you mean "make themselves look foolish"?
|
|
| 1137 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Fri, Jul 22, 2011, 23:25
|
Not to mention exposing liberals for the condescending paternalistic racists and women debasing misogynists that they really are.
Love it. The guy who throws a fit whenever someone dares mention a single act of teaparty bigotry or observe that a higher than normal rate of racially demeaning propaganda seems to come out of that particular sector of the political right has his bile cannon pumping out on it's broadest setting tonight.
That's how you know you hit a nerve.
|
|
| 1138 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Jul 23, 2011, 00:01
|
Nope, it's just pent up bile [been posting sporadically] meeting unusually wrongheaded liberals lately.
|
|
| 1139 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sat, Jul 23, 2011, 00:06
|
Now now, don't sell yourself short. You despise more Americans than anyone I've ever met. Don't suddenly get shy on me.
|
|
| 1140 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Jul 23, 2011, 00:28
|
There are indeed a lot of suicidally stupid americans.
|
|
| 1141 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 23, 2011, 12:38
|
as evidenced by how many pop votes GWB got in 2004.
|
|
| 1142 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:28
|
not sure it this is the right thread but here is an interesting article talking about the richest 1% of American and myth that they really are not that rich unless they are able to be in the top .5%. It is interesting that bottom half of the top 1% they got there by working hard and being smart, it is not clear that you could say the same about the top half.
|
|
| 1143 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 17:12
|
Very interesting as a confirmatory exercise, though this is pretty much the view I already held.
At least until it was revealed that Barney Frank was the root of all our economic ills. The top 0.1% must have had a hearty chuckle when the successfully sold that meme to the weak-minded teabagatariot.
|
|
| 1144 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 17:18
|
teabagatariot
Wow, even bili's brain has turned to mush. Who is left worth talking to here?
|
|
| 1145 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 17:31
|
Sorry to disaappoint. Just trying to be pithy yet jocular via I-phone.
Best I can general do these days.
|
|
| 1146 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Jul 26, 2011, 13:14
|
Not sure where to put this, but perhaps if the Rep took this comment and made it their guiding principle, they might actually accomplish something.
“I have made it a principle to pursue my self-interest in my business, subject to legal and ethical limitations, and to be guided by the public interest as a public intellectual and philanthropist,” he wrote. “If the two are in conflict, the public interest ought to prevail,” he said.
Oh...who MADE the comment?
link
The quote is approx 1/3 of the way down and under the heading "Public Interest"
|
|
| 1147 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Jul 26, 2011, 14:14
|
I clicked on the link expecting to find another hypocritical Republican, instead just another hypocritical billionaire that is not Republican.
|
|
| 1148 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 12:21
|
Tea Party victor, 117k in arrears on child support
Fiscal responsibility??? This asshat doesnt have a CLUE what the word "responsibility" means.
Not sure who is the more incompetent....him, or his election opponents campaign manager for not bringing this to light DURING the election.
|
|
| |
| 1150 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 15:00
|
new mileage standards
Pardon my french, but fking Republicans...
But by Friday evening, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, had sent letters to the 13 automobile manufacturers that agreed to the deal saying they should preserve all records because he was launching an investigation. Issa alleges that the new mandate was decided without the input of consumers and Congress and could harm consumers.
"It appears that these actions will have the effect of determining the types of vehicles available to consumers, their use, and other factors otherwise best left to consumer choice," Issa said in the letter, obtained by The Associated Press.
Those silly bstrds just cant STAND the thought, that maybe Pres Obama can get something done WITHOUT their dictati8ng what, how, when etc etc. To think, he intends to 'investigate'. Investigtae what exactly? This alien to him concept of "compromise"?
|
|
| 1151 | The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 15:19
|
Hey if I want to pay $10 for a gallon of gas due to fleet fuel economy of 20 mph then that's my right as an American! Don't take away my freedom!
|
|
| 1152 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 16:59
|
by 2025, it will be at LEAST $10/gal anyway.
|
|
| 1153 | The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 20:05
|
If the only people the Republican Party stood for actually voted for them, they would lose every election by 90-10. Times used to be that Republicans stood for admirable things like smaller government, lower taxes, regular people trying to get ahead, and pro-life. They've allowed themselves to be hijacked by fundies and the Tea Party anarchists. I miss the old Republican Party that truly believed in smaller government and power to the individual.
The Tea Party just has a lot of people brainwashed and if they get into power we're all in trouble.
|
|
| 1154 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 14:14
|
are you a wealthy conservative whacko and trying to find ways to give more money to your fave candidate than the law allows? No problem, set up a shill copmany, donate to a PAC via that company, then shut the company down!
link
Someone tell me again please, just how the Republicans try and claim some moral high ground?
|
|
| 1155 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 14:29
|
It's because the death panels are more profitable, I think.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1158 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 16:31
|
re 1157; Texas Gov. Rick Perry today urges us to believe that the economy is gripped by the worst slump since the Great Depression because Obama spoke disrespectfully of the owners of private jets. To which I can only say: Really? That’s the indictment? Really?
Pretty much, yep. Thats about all they (the Republicans) have, really.
|
|
| 1159 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 05:19
|
Those silly bstrds just cant STAND the thought, that maybe Pres Obama can get something done WITHOUT their dictati8ng what, how, when etc etc. To think, he intends to 'investigate'. Investigtae what exactly? - Sarge
The dictating going on is Obama making up rules that are in the rightful purvue of congress to make. What president before ever thot he could invent the CAFE standards all by himself? Or intimidate and blackmail businesses?
They don't get to be commander in chief and he doesn't get to write the laws.
|
|
| 1160 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 05:23
|
David Frum may be republican but he certainly isn't conservative. He's been the reliable favorite go-to republican conservative basher the MSM has been using to vilify conservatives for at least several years.
|
|
| 1161 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 06:18
|
Son of a Canadian MSM mom. Conrad Black's guest to three Bilderberg meetings. Has a pattern established in college:“there was a sense” that attacking the Lit [conservative - B] “was a good career move,” an unnamed ally of Navrozov’s told Toronto Life in 2001, “a sense—and a resentment—that [Frum] was trying to establish himself as the acceptable conservative voice on campus—not with other conservatives, but with the powers that be.” I believe he really did have a Damascus moment reading Gulag Archepelago in his youth but he's never been able to outgrow his familial distaste for his new political orientation. Or his instinctive family understanding of the location of the teat where a judas conservative might profitably nestle.
He seems to have been separated at birth from Pat Caddell.
|
|
| 1162 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 06:28
|
Source, his wiki.
|
|
| 1163 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 08:24
|
When attacked from within, first cull the attacker...
|
|
| 1164 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 10:33
|
Looks like Chris Christie is about to join the ranks of the RINOs...
Chris Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears "crap" and "crazy."
|
|
| 1166 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 14:01
|
s-l-o-w comp, 1165 sewlf edited, since it duplicated 1164.
|
|
| 1167 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 22:51
|
Teabaggers unhappy about Newsweeks cover photo of Michele Bachmann
"Under the editorial control of Tina Brown, the rice paper magazine barely struggles against its bias towards conservative women to view them with anything other than contempt," Dana Loesch wrote on Andrew Breitbart's BigJournalism.com.
Well, in all fairness; since contempt is all Michele has for America, contempt is how she SHOULD be held.
|
|
| 1168 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 09:00
|
My god, she always looks like that! I have always felt her eyes did have that "enthusiastic" look, and have found her to be more physically attractive than Palin, but that those eyes did reflect her wackiness.
If Newsweek had used a photo wherein she looked more relaxed, I'm sure the right would have complained that the magazine purposefully attempted to omit her zest for life or something.
|
|
| 1169 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 12:59
|
embedded in the article linked in 1157:
Could it be that our enemies were right?
Interesting that the Rights TRULY knowledgeable leadership is asking this question; sad that Left-Right are called 'enemies'.
|
|
| |
| 1171 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 13:40
|
is it just me, or did #17 look pretty much 'normal'. (Normal being a relative term, given the subject in photo 17)
|
|
| |
| 1173 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:34
|
ummm, tis the teabaggers yes? Seeking to "push an agenda"? Twas the teabaggers, was it not, who [pushed us to the brink of default? Spending monies authorized by Congress, but ion excess of the debt ceiling is not only NOT an impeachable offense; but mandated BY, the 14th Amendment.
It could in fact be argued, that the debt ceiling in and of itself, is unconstitutional. Want to impose a meaningful debt ceiling? Dont authorize the expenditures...Congress.
|
|
| 1174 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 17:36
|
file this in the Cover Your Own Ass department.
Burgess was elected with Tea Party support. He was one of seven Texas Republicans in the house to vote IN FAVOR of the deal that raised the debt ceiling.
his constituents are pissed, so he's trying to lay the blame elsewhere.
|
|
| 1175 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 21:40
|
The sessionist to announce his candidacy Saturday
I've said a few times snow, todays GOP is looking more and more like the 19th century's Confederacy. To hell with the Federal Govt and up wioth States rights. So what if we have 50 diufferent educational standards, health care standards, etc etc etc. Tal;k about duplication of effort. Instead of 1 federal office, these clowns want 50 different state offices; and they somehow call that "smaller govt".
|
|
| |
| 1177 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 12:22
|
money quote:
According to GOP sources, the decision to cede the 2012 election to Obama came after rank-and-file Republicans agreed that grinding the president down to nothing and pushing him to the brink of insanity was far more in line with the Republican Party's core principles than actually controlling the White House, making laws, or governing the country.
|
|
| |
| 1179 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 12:32
|
Do you mean secessionist? I live in Texas with Governor Perry. We did not secede.
|
|
| 1180 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 12:33
|
no, you didnt secede. But Perry advocated it. I too lived in TX and Perry, is a dimwit.
|
|
| 1181 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 12:42
|
He said it was possible. He's been governor for 10 years and you're blogging political stuff on a fantasy sports website in the middle of the afternoon and he's the dimwit?
|
|
| 1182 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 12:51
|
He did say it was possible. He was wrong. He's governor of the state for ten years and something simple like the ability of Texas to leave the Union was beyond him?
|
|
| 1183 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:02
|
First , he attempted to call Perry a secessionist. Then he said Perry advocated seceding. He's full of misinformation. And any state can secede if they vote to do so. It is possible. They may not get away with it like in the civil war, but I don't see why they can't do it.
|
|
| |
| 1185 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:21
|
I should add that Perry specifically pointed to the agreement between the United States and Texas as allowing for them to leave. And that document simply doesn't say what he said it says.
|
|
| 1186 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:42
|
Wait, so you're surprised that a Republican doesn't believe in reality, but instead publicly states what he, and his supporters, want to be reality? That doesn't sound like the Republican/Tea Party that I know.
|
|
| 1187 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:56
|
B7.. I did NOT "attempt" to call Perry a secessionist. I DID call him a secessionist. And yes, he is a dimwit. Doesnt even know the terms of the agreement his own State negotiated, but claims it gives TX authorities and options which it doesnt.
|
|
| 1188 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:57
|
I think Perry retracted that anyways.
After they seceded they were not still part of the union. They had their own President, currency , flag, etc. The north thought they were still part of the union. You have anything relevant to the discussion to add Frick?
|
|
| 1189 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 14:05
|
You think he retracted that? Show me.
|
|
| 1190 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 14:26
|
He walked it back, basically admitting it was a political ploy. But what may sound like a ridiculous threat to bring down the union has to be taken a bit more seriously after last week, when a minority of legislators representing a minority opinion in this country tossed federal default onto the bargaining table and then stuck to their hand long enough to convince S&P they really are crazy enough to let it happen.
|
|
| 1191 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 14:17
|
Ezra Klein on the debate:
The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate wasn’t when Michele Bachmann cooly stuck a knife between Tim Pawlenty’s ribs, or when Rick Santorum plaintively begged for more airtime, or when Mitt Romney easily slipped past questions about his record on health-care reform. It was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.
The NRO's Kevin Williamson lands a nice solid punch on this point as well.
Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough goes on an anti-Bachmann rant. Sometimes you gotta call a crazy a crazy. Joe's spot on.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1194 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:35
|
Here is the really ridiculous Joe Scarborough idea that actually got floated.
|
|
| 1195 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:41
|
So, since you cant combat his comments re Bachmann (because he ius spot on and you know it even if you wont admit it)...you bring up something else you can try and fling at him?
|
|
| |
| 1197 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 13:08
|
re: 1192 - excellent find PD

I take issue with the idea that the economy would decline linearily as hypothesised in this graph. The author of the piece points that out here:
Of course, this whole analysis depends on the assumption that without the stimulus, the economy would have continued to decline at the same rate. We don’t know that for a fact, and that has always been the obvious weakness in Holtz-Eakin’s approach. It’s possible that the economic collapse could have slowed down all on its own. But it is also possible that the decline could have accelerated rapidly into a second Great Depression.
Indeed, the pace of decline was actually quickening before the Recovery Act was enacted. In the second quarter of 2008, the economy grew by an annualized rate of just 1.3 percent. In the following quarter it contracted by 3.7 percent, and then by a whopping 8.9 percent in the last quarter of 2008 as President George W. Bush prepared to hand over the White House reins to President Obama.
If instead of assuming the economy would have contracted in each successive quarter at the same rate as it had in the fourth quarter of 2008, we assume that it continued dropping but at an increasing rate, as it had been during the last three quarters of 2008, then the success of the stimulus is even more pronounced, with a multiplier surpassing 5. I'm certain that without the stimulus, we would have started economic growth at either q3 or 4 of 2009, but we would be so much farther down that we would still be short of 14 trillion GDP right now. The evidence is irrefutable that the stimulus was a success, but I am also certain that the clowns running for the GOP nomination would unanimously say they would STILL vote against it if they could.
|
|
| 1198 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 19:12
|
IA Straw Poll Results
2011 Straw Poll Full Results (Votes, %) 1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%) 2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%) 3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%) 4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%) 5. Herman Cain(1456, 8.62%) 6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in 7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%) 8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%) 9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%) 10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%) Scattering (162, 0.96 %) Includes all those receiving votes at less than one-percent that were not on the ballot.
|
|
| 1199 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 19:36
|
Not surprised Bachmann did so well, hppily surprised that Paul came in 2nd.
I doubt I could at this stage bring myself to vote for him, but with him in the race, the discourse will be much more interesting.
Appears that Colbert was not successful with his 'Super PAC" pushing for write-ins for Rick Parry.
|
|
| 1200 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 19:59
|
I haven't followed Colbert lately so I don't know what thats about but landing 718 write-in votes for 6th place is pretty impressive. There were only 880 total write-in votes cast. I have to think a good portion of the remaining 162 went to Palin, who spent a couple of days at the IA State Fair this week.
|
|
| |
| 1202 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 02:44
|
Rick Perry, just as two-faced as the rest of them
Abrams, asked for backup for the president’s statement, pointed us to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which in turn sent us its July 2009 report on state budgets. According to the report, state budget-writing Texas lawmakers in 2009 were short $6.6 billion in revenue for 2010-11 and relied heavily on stimulus funds for a solution.
We did our own budget research, finding that lawmakers agreed to spend $80.6 billion in state general revenue on basic expenses over the two-year period, according to a report by the Legislative Budget Board, which advises lawmakers on budgetary matters.
However, the stimulus aid let legislators put an additional $6.4 billion toward programs, primarily Medicaid and education, historically financed with general revenue, according to a July 2009 House Research Organization report. Another $5.7 billion in stimulus money went to programs such as highway and bridge construction, child care development programs and weatherization assistance.
Counting all funding sources, including the $12.1 billion in stimulus aid, the 2010-11 state budget totaled $182 billion.
...
Back to the stimulus: On Feb. 18, 2009, the same day Perry accepted the federal funds, the governor slammed the legislation as being "full of pork and special interest handouts." On his campaign website, Perry wrote: "The Democrats think this bill will change our country's financial fortunes, but you and I know better. … This administration is saddling future generations with an increasingly unbearable debt." He then urged readers to sign an online petition telling "Washington" that they are "fed up with bailouts."
In his letter to Obama accepting the aid, Perry said: "As you know, I have been vocal in my opposition to this legislation because I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe (the stimulus plan) will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt."
Perry also wrote that he opposed using "these funds to expand existing government programs" because the state would be burdened "with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up." (Elsewhere, Perry was quoted as saying that he welcomed federal dollars that could be used for one-time expenses.)
|
|
| 1203 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 02:48
|
Rick Perry...what? me care about the unemployed???
From the center of a Houston hardware store, Gov. Rick Perry ignited a debate about Texas job cuts, business taxes and President Barack Obama’s so-called economic stimulus program Thursday by rejecting the federal government’s offer of $555 million in aid to the unemployed.
And THIS, is the guy you Republicans think should be President?
|
|
| |
| |
| 1206 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 14:43
|
He was getting smoked by Bachmann. Truth is, if he can't handle the crazies than he didn't deserve the nomination.
I think this gives a slight bump to Huntsman. Not enough to give him any real legs, IMO.
|
|
| 1207 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 15:49
|
Shouldn't the lion's share of his support go to Romney?
|
|
| 1208 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 18:47
|
I think the mods who weren't already for Romney (because of religion, or aversion to flopping) weren't moving toward him. At least not yet. Eventually a moderate candidate will rise (probably Romney) who will make the case that the crazy candidate simply won't win.
|
|
| 1209 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 01:48
|
Understand, I don 't like Rick "let's go steal us some FLDS children" Perry but...
I gotta admit this is gonna be useful in a campaign...
|
|
| 1210 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 02:03
|
That'll be his big talking point, I think.
Meanwhile, his belief that Social Security is unconstitutional will be on the lips of his opponents. When they aren't whispering "Gardasil" into the ears of the Tea Party crazies to stir 'em up.
|
|
| 1211 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 02:08
|
I don't know every Rick Perry particular just yet but he's always struck me as a GOP insider RINO who understands just how conservative you have to pose in Texas to get elected.
|
|
| 1212 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 02:11
|
Or how crazy. You don't have to confuse the two like Perry has.
Bush was immensely popular in Texas, but was never as far to the Right as Perry.
|
|
| 1213 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 02:17
|
Merck [maker of guardsasil - B] is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country....
Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government...
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons. I wonder if that last sentence just barely saves his bacon with his presumptive base.
|
|
| 1214 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 02:23
|
Maybe. They were really, really pissed that he signed an EO mandating that the girls take it in the first place, even when that EO had an opt-out clause.
As usual, in the end Perry went down swinging, using a video of a dying cancer victim to give grief to those who didn't want the vaccine to be mandated (or, in some vases, used at all, since they felt it allowed girls to be sexually active without the consequences of cervical cancer.).
I'm sure Perry will try to sweep it under the rug. And in a wide open race obviously everyone has warts.
|
|
| 1215 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 03:11
|
If Romney can stay viable with Romneycare in his resume Perry can more or less survive that.
I really see Perry as a stalkinghorse for Romney. A GOP insider who will split up the conservative base so a RINO can squeek past the primary.
|
|
| 1216 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 04:29
|
Ooo, I forgot he was a big backer of the CanaMex Economic Union and it's super-tollroad backbone.
Oh, the conservatives won't let him off the hook for that one. Oh no.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1219 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 11:46
|
re 1209
the truth on job creation in Texas
Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.
Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average...
..."They have a long way to go before they get back to a positive place," said Doug Hall, director of the Economic Analysis and Research Network, an institute project.
|
|
| 1220 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 11:49
|
I'm all for cutting corporate taxes with a couple of conditions:
1. Close the loophole that allows US companies to incorporate in Switzerland or similar country with low corporate tax, when, in reality, they are a US entity.
2. Incentivise the tax structure to benefit companies that keep jobs in the US, or bring jobs back to the US.
Bachmann's logic is somewhat twisted. On the one hand, she says we can't afford to extend job benefits, yet feels we can afford to lower revenue to the tune of 2 trillion over 10 years.
This lack of business saavy will become more apparent, as Romney and Perry use their track records to put distance between themselves and Bachmann on economic issues.
On a somewhat delayed note, kudos to Tim Pawlenty for pulling out of the race early when he realized his campaign wasn't catching on. Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Huntsman should take note.
|
|
| 1221 | sarge33rd
ID: 337171611 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 12:17
|
The only REAL diff I see between Bachmann and Palin; is the spelling of their names. Combine the two into a singular human body, and you end up with a halfwit.
Perry v Romney is where the race stands now, and given the vote in 2004...Perry scares me.
|
|
| 1222 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 12:17
|
Meh, I actually don't mind Huntsman (and Cain, I guess) running for a while to try to build name recognition, since they haven't been on the national stage for long. Probably a sensible move to string it out for a while in their cases.
|
|
| 1223 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 13:35
|
Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population.
'Border' state.
|
|
| 1224 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 14:44
|
Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population.
'Border' state.
which, of course, has nothing to do with what is being discussed, but nice try.
|
|
| 1225 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 14:48
|
I think his point is that it is rapidly growing because of Mexicans coming across.
No proof of that, but there you go.
|
|
| 1226 | sarge33rd
ID: 237511613 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 14:51
|
ND is a border state too. So?
|
|
| 1227 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 15:42
|
oh, no, i understood his point. but just like most of what he says, it's just him talking out of his butt - no proof to what he's trying to claim.
|
|
| |
| 1229 | sarge33rd
ID: 407572813 Sun, Aug 28, 2011, 15:31
|
GOP tax cutters...my arse
Let the rich keep their Bush Era Tax Cuts, but lets end the reduced FICA withholdings. So the guy making 500k/yr gets to keep his/her 20k, but the schmuck making 30k/yr has to give up their $600?????
GOP = tax cuts ONLY IF...you dont need it.
|
|
| 1230 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Aug 28, 2011, 15:40
|
Payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative things Congress can do. And opposing either is just political suicide.
|
|
| 1231 | sarge33rd
ID: 407572813 Sun, Aug 28, 2011, 15:50
|
Couple simple truths....
poor(er) folks, tend to spend the vast majority of their income staying alive.
payroll tax deductions, gives them an extra $50 or so month, which they WILL spend.
$50 x how many damn people = HUGE boost to the economy.
$2k tax cut to someone already NOT spending their full income = MORE money not spent in the economy.
No real rocket science involved. PD is absolutely right, when he calls it "the most stimulative thing congress can do".
|
|
| 1232 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Sep 04, 2011, 21:55
|
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999.
|
|
| |
| 1234 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:14
|
Looking for Ronald Reagan — and Not Finding Him
Note to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and especially Newt Gingrich — you can invoke my father's name until your tongues fall out, but you will never be anywhere near his shadow. This isn't a political pronouncement on my part. I didn't agree with all of my father's positions and policies, and I would never consider myself a political commentator. I'm the daughter of a man with deep character, who left a huge imprint on this world.
written by someone who would know...even more than Baldwin.
|
|
| 1235 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:16
|
and this....
wow...
The moment that would have broken my father's heart was the moment when applause broke out at the mention of more than 200 executions ordered by Rick Perry in Texas. It was stunning and brought tears to my eyes. This is what we've come to? That we applaud at executions?
I remember the first time my father ordered an execution when he was Governor. He and a minister went into a room, got down on their knees and prayed. The real shame of our times is that there doesn't seem to be anyone on the political horizon with that compassion in his or her heart.
|
|
| 1236 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:26
|
re 1233: I think it is pretty clear that social security is ponzi scheme even by there own fact checking definition of a ponzi scheme they pretty much defined social security.
I think it might be time to start a new thread we are at over 1200 posts.
|
|
| 1237 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:26
|
I would hope you aren't suggesting she knows Reagan better than Baldwin...
|
|
| 1238 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:34
|
social security is ponzi scheme even by there own fact checking definition of a ponzi scheme
This is sarcasm?
|
|
| 1239 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:38
|
I wish, but then again that is what they were saying about Madoff. It is never a ponzi scheme till you are left asking yourself why am I not getting paid anymore.
|
|
| 1240 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 15:52
|
Run some numbers, benefits have gone down while contribution rates have gone up. clearly those who are older and contributed to system earlier are getting out more than those who contributed later.
|
|
| 1241 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:00
|
That is simply because historical contributions were too low. Relatively minor adjustments, if we had the political will, would put it back in balance, and allow it to continue indefinitely. That's not a ponzi scheme.
|
|
| 1242 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:08
|
I>I would hope you aren't suggesting she knows Reagan better than Baldwin... - bili
Oh please. She was a liberal who never agreed with Ronald Reagan once in her life or thot his principles were a height to measure up to. So when she says someone doesn't measure up to Reagan what does that really mean to her?
|
|
| 1243 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:08
|
"Ronald Reagan was my dad...and you're no Ronald Reagan."
"so? i read more books about him in one day than you read in a life time."
|
|
| 1244 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:17
|
And while you are at it be sure and ask Ron 'ballet dancin' Jr. I am positive you can get the same meaningless assessment from him as well.
|
|
| 1245 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:19
|
On the otherhand if you ask Ronald's adopted son whom Nancy always treated shabbily you will get a stirling assessment of the debaters.
|
|
| 1246 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:25
|
Please expound on how ballet has crap to do with anything. Maybe you should ask his wife.
|
|
| 1247 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:27
|
re 1241: That is simply because historical contributions were too low. Relatively minor adjustments, if we had the political will, would put it back in balance, and allow it to continue indefinitely. That's not a ponzi scheme.
so in other words it was a ponzi scheme but now it is not because they realized that that it was unsustainable?
if they made the contributions like 50% of income it would work better and or just increased the population size, so how would keep the system in balance if god forbid the US's population began to decline like Europe's?
i am not sure who is living off the 6% of my income because that is not going to get you much more than a candy bar and soda to live off...
|
|
| 1248 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:28
|
Please explain to me what asking liberals about the character of the debaters has crap to do with anything.
|
|
| 1249 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:36
|
Feel free to demonstrate further how bigotry and hatred completely muddle your ability to reason. They are his kids, dude.
|
|
| 1250 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 16:48
|
Oh please. She was a liberal who never agreed with Ronald Reagan once in her life or thot his principles were a height to measure up to.
reading is fundamental, and despite your proclamations as to how much you read, i'm starting to question that ability.
she said in the article she didn't agree with a lot of her father's politics, but she always believed in his principles.
i believe her more than i believe you in this instance.
Please explain to me what asking liberals about the character of the debaters has crap to do with anything.
or, ya know, Ronald Reagan's children. are you that childish and bigoted and ignorant that their views don't mean anything?
|
|
| 1251 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 17:15
|
bili
And so is Michael Reagan.
Since he actually thinks like Reagan, I think he is the only family member whose opinion counts for anything on this issue.
|
|
| 1252 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 17:16
|
Yeah, all other members who disagree with you are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
Since, of course, your belief in Reagan trumps all those who lived and worked with him who believe otherwise, yes?
|
|
| 1253 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 18:46
|
There would have been no Reagan if he had listened to them. Why should I?
|
|
| 1254 | sarge33rd
ID: 13856817 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 18:56
|
The beauty of Reagan, was in his ability to hear both sides, and then demonstrated ability to compromise, even when he didnt really want to. Part of his legacy.lesson, B obviously has chosen to ignore,.
|
|
| 1255 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 19:01
|
Reagan was a freakin' clown.
His economics made no numerical sense, his big Star Wars idea was technically impossible at the time (though we are getting closer), and he was fortunate to have good, smart people around him and in Congress to make him look better than he was. He ran up huge debts, bailed out the saving and loan, and left this country far worse than he found it, mainly based upon eroding trust in government.
He was a folksy guy with a good smile, and some decent handlers, but he wasn't a particularly good president.
I'm sick of people holding him up as some sort of deity.
|
|
| 1256 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 19:03
|
#1253: Actually, he did listen to them. And took their advice all the time. The problem is that you don't see that, and somehow this "You're all fired!" is all you remember from the man, and you've built it up the the detriment of how he actually was able to accomplish what he did.
You've really got to purge yourself of this Reagan worship. You're like those Pacific Islanders making pretend airplanes on WWII airstrips in the hopes of bringing back the planes of aid.
|
|
| 1257 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 19:07
|
You are wasting your time, PD. There is no one in the Tea Party, not a one, who is buying what you are selling. I would be amazed if you are even being favorably heard by Reagan democrats.
|
|
| 1258 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 19:10
|
And settling for what he could get out of a Tip O'Neal House of Representatives does not mean he changed his mind or compromised his principles.
|
|
| 1259 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 19:20
|
he changed his mind or compromised his principles.
See, this just demonstrates that you are hearing what you want to hear instead of what is said. I have never said he compromised his principles. Never.
Members of his own administration have come out at the Tea Party mythologizing (lying) about what Reagan was, what he stood for, and how he accomplished things.
You might as well have said "nothing will change my mind about what I believe about him."
I get it--you are doubling down on your myth, for some reason. But speaking the truth is never a waste of time.
|
|
| 1260 | sarge33rd
ID: 13856817 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 19:24
|
I blame Limbaugh and his book "What ME Compromise". Compromise, is not a bad thing,. It is how 2 or more people are able to coexist, without killing one another. The Right,m in too many cases, has turned the art of compromise (negotiation), and created the myth that it is somehow bad.
Compromise, and compromise of principles..are not the same things. UNLESS, you are arrogant enough to think you and ONLY you...have ALL the right answers.
So B...how arrogant are you?
|
|
| 1261 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 20:29
|
Hopefully the Tea Party is done with compromises that always ratchet the country further socialist.
|
|
| 1262 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 20:34
|
Hopefully the Tea Party is done
that should be your real sentiment.
the only hope the Republican party has is to jettison the Tea Party and the extremists that have hijacked the party.
as long as they keep kowtowing to the radical fringes of the party, they'll continue to suck the life out of the party
|
|
| 1263 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 20:51
|
Like they did in the 2010 election. *yawn*
|
|
| 1264 | sarge33rd
ID: 13856817 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 20:56
|
which will not be repeated in 2012 *yawn* Your party, as you see it does not exist. The GOP, has been corrupted into a political arm of the radical Christians. A Theocracy, will not emerge in this land.
|
|
| 1265 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 21:07
|
Like they did in the 2010 election. *yawn*
it was lightening in a bottle, and pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate. won't happen again.
|
|
| 1266 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 01:34
|
2010 is Exhibit A of "What Happens When Democrats Sit Out Elections."
That is simply not going to happen in 2012.
|
|
| |
| 1268 | sarge33rd
ID: 138411112 Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 14:15
|
Cain just told on himself. ANY chance he may have had remaining, slim though it was, just went *poof* with his using the dead for personal gain.
|
|
| 1269 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 14:55
|
Afterward, as we all took stock, I was struck by the death of cynicism. - PD
|
|
| 1270 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Sep 12, 2011, 10:49
|
#1269: Yeah, many of us are still shocked that a person running for office would use footage of 9/11 in suck a crass way--in a cynical way, in fact.
Meanwhile, Pawlenty endorses Romney. The Establishment GOP is lining up, it seems. Seems a little early for T-Paw to do so, but perhaps he is pulling a John Edwards and throwing an endorsement when he thinks it'll do the most good rather than waiting for the inevitable and throwing his name in with the rest of the pack whenever the choice is clear.
|
|
| 1271 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Mon, Sep 12, 2011, 12:52
|
The fork has been sticking out of Cain's gut for a while. That political ad should complete the silverware hari-kari. Only the most extremely tone-deaf and tastelessly jingoistic troglodyte could possibly see merit in that dreck.
|
|
| 1272 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Sep 12, 2011, 13:39
|
Actually it was almost an identical moment that launched him to national prominence.
I doubt very much that your take-away resembles anything his potential voters feel when they hear that.
Does this crowd sound cynical and turned off?
|
|
| 1273 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Sep 12, 2011, 13:57
|
I'm sure they are excited. Which misses my point by a lot.
I can show you some far left candidates getting huge, heartfelt, and loud cheering. Which doesn't say anything about whether they are right or wrong. Or whether the means they use to stir up their base is valid or not.
|
|
| 1274 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Sep 12, 2011, 14:11
|
MITH
I think the response of potential Cain voters is going to be different than someone whose natural response to 9/11 was to order out middle-eastern food and then feel morally superior ever after for having done so.
|
|
| 1275 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Mon, Sep 12, 2011, 14:12
|
Well, taste is subjective.
Put Boldwin in the "not tastelessly exploitative" column on that one. I wonder how he'd feel of one of the shots in that political ad was of the corpse of one of his dead relatives being dragged out of the rubble.
My opinion is already there but I should have included abject vanity for the use of his own rendition as the soundtrack.
|
|
| |
| 1278 | slug
ID: 358131311 Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 12:13
|
IMO, Huntsman is the Republican candidate that most closely fits Jennifer Rubin's description
|
|
| |
| 1280 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 10:11
|
I was just reading that. Looks like the Dems didn't take it very seriously, and put up a candidate who wasn't a very good campaigner.
You'd think they would have learned something after losing Ted Kennedy's seat. But it is the same play on their part.
Good for the GOP. Don't know a ton about the winner but he appears to be a somewhat moderate Republican.
Republicans also won the special election for the Nevada House seat (NV-2?), though that was never really in doubt.
|
|
| 1281 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 11:24
|
Looks like the Dems didn't take it very seriously - PDLongtime New York City Democratic analyst Hank Sheinkopf says there is no doubt the voters were trying to send a message to the White House and Democrats should see Tuesday’s results as a bellwether for 2012.
“The Democrats said no to Obama, no to his economic plan, and no to his position on Israel,” Sheinkopf told ABC News. “It’s major smack at Democrats, a definite rejection of President Obama and it’s a warning that says if Catholics in the most blue of blue states can vote for the Republican they can do it in other states as well and the Democrats may have real trouble.”
Special elections traditionally do have low turnout, but the district is registered three to one in favor of Democrats and the Queens party machine is strong, they had over 1,000 volunteers in the district in a get out the vote effort knocking on doors over the weekend and the past two days. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent more than $500,000 in television ads in the district. Outside groups also poured money in the race and Sheinkopf estimates that the Democrats could have outspent Republicans “six or eight to one” in the race. - ABC News
Former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch’s endorsement of Turner in July shifted the momentum to the Republican. Koch urged Jewish voters to cast a vote for Turner to send a message to the White House to rebuke their Israel stance and it’s been a crucial issue that Weprin had to defend himself on throughout the short campaign. Koch didn’t back down from that Tuesday at Turner’s victory party saying the president “threw Israel under the bus,” according to the New York Times.
Monday, Turner acknowledged that he and Weprin’s views on Israel are similar, but it’s about the president’s stance on Israel.
“It’s not about my position or his [Weprin] which are pretty identical, it’s the president’s position and if you are with the party or against it, simple as that and will this district, which is surprisingly overwhelmingly Democratic, will they go along with the president and be able to be taken for granted... This district hadn't sent a Republican to the House of Representatives for the last 92 years. [as I recall hearing] To be sure, passions on the Israel issue ran high. Late Thursday night, waiting for the candidates to show at a forum at the Bet Shaul U'Miriam synagogue in Brooklyn's Midwood neighborhood, an Orthodox Jewish man loudly railed about Schumer and the Democratic Party for holding a late Friday afternoon fundraiser that blocked a neighborhood street, making it so that locals couldn't get home in time for Shabbos. "Everyone that hates Israel, that hates America, votes Democrat," he said.
But while Obama's Israel policy certainly mattered here, it mattered most to just a small slice of the district. One-third of the 9th is Jewish, and an even smaller percentage of them are Orthodox. [the Dem candidate was an orthodox Jew, Turner is catholic - B] The Turner campaign micro-targeted those voters in hopes angry Orthodox Jewish residents would be enough to make him a congressman.

Unions countered with an aggressive GOTV campaign in and the support of the usual unions, such as the United Federation of Teachers, the Patrolman's Benevolent Association, and AFSCME.
Also at issue in the contest was same-sex marriage. Weprin's vote in favor of it while a state legislator came up often in the district, with rabbis in particular hammering the topic. But in the end its importance may have been overstated. If same-sex marriage was so central to the race, why were the favorability ratings of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, so closely identified with the push for same-sex marriage's legislative affirmation in New York, so sky-high? Buried in the same Siena College poll Friday that drew enormous attention to Weprin's fading chances, Cuomo held a favorability rating of 75 percent amongst likely voters in the 9th district. And a full 62 percent of Turner voters thought highly of Cuomo in the survey. - The Atlantic
|
|
| 1282 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 11:35
|
yes, yes, you would like any GOP election win to be about all voters perfectly aligning with your extremist views.
Weprin was cooked when he lost the Daily News endorsement after he couldn't answer a question about how big the debt is. Democrats put up a so-so candidate and never got behind him (probably, because he was so-so).
|
|
| 1283 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 12:18
|
You can read better than that.
They pulled out all the stops. 1000+ volunteers knocking on doors. Outspent republicans at least 6-1.
Yes Weprin said 4 trillion instead of 14 trillion. You really think Weiner voters care about that? Since when did democrats care about the deficit?
The guy was kinda unexciting by his own admission, they say he wasn't gaffing it up at the end of the campaign tho. I hear he was significantly better coached and disciplined by the end. I've even heard he was slated because he wouldn't complain if they had to redistrict him out of office.
But c'mon, look at the advantages he had.- Three times as many registered Dem voters.
- Six times as much money.
- More volunteers than citizens. Hyperbole but not by much.
- Ninety-two years without voting for a Republican.
You sir, are whistling past the graveyard, cause this one was a message vote.
|
|
| 1284 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 12:32
|
You really think Weiner voters care about that?
I think you miss the point--there are a lot of swing voters in that district despite the registration gap. So it doesn't matter if the "Weiner" voters cared, it matters if the swing voters do. And they did.
And the fact that Democrats had to spend money in that district just goes to the point that they were trying to prop up a candidate who couldn't pull his own weight.
You need to think about why you always believe it is a "message vote" when the GOP wins but never a "message vote" when they lose. And you should probably figure out exactly what that message is, since the message those voters said in exit polls is a bit different from what you would have them say.
|
|
| 1285 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 12:43
|
there are a lot of swing voters in that district
Based on what empirical evidence? And they were waiting nine decades to swing?
|
|
| 1286 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 13:32
|
if there's any "message" to be had here, it's that the large orthodox jewish population in that community doesn't approve of how Obama has handled Israel, and they didn't approve of Weprin's stance on social issues such as Gay Marriage.
and that large orthodox community doesn't have nearly as much sway in a national election.
|
|
| |
| 1288 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:29
|
I think we need to put this election in perspective because ordinarily Republicans can't pry Jewish voters from the Dem party no matter how antithetical to Jewish interests the Dem candidate happens to be.
|
|
| 1289 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:30
|
And it's not much easier for Republicans among blue collar NYC catholics either.
|
|
| 1290 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:35
|
ordinarily Republicans can't pry Jewish voters from the Dem party
Unless forced, of course. Perhaps that is the message--that Republicans can win Jews in races only through intimidation and calling votes for a Democrat "sin."
|
|
| 1291 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:42
|
It will certainly be interesting to check the exit polls from that district in 2012.
So, you PD, don't think they bought the meme that Obama had thrown Israel under the bus? I think they did. We'll see in 15 months.
|
|
| 1292 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:43
|
Yes, I believe that the Orthodox rabbis absolutely believed that rubbish.
|
|
| 1293 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:46
|
That's the view in Israel too. It's certainly my view.
|
|
| |
| 1295 | slug
ID: 268251515 Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 16:25
|
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing the link, PD. Always good to see what the candidates are doing outside of their political world
|
|
| 1296 | sarge33rd
ID: 488551511 Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 16:28
|
Makes one saddened, he is running so low with his parties base.
|
|
| |
| 1298 | walk
ID: 348442710 Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 12:51
|
Koch's Impact on Turner's Win
Former mayor, and ardent pro-Israel supporter (who I see around my neighborhood now and again) is also a reason Turner won that election. The next time I do see Mr. Koch, I want to remind him to be careful what he wishes for. He may get a "whacky" president instead of Obama in 2012.
|
|
| 1299 | Mith
ID: 46121210 Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 13:01
|
Anyone see the Huntsman campaign stop at a motorcycle manufacturer in NH yesterday? Got on a bike and rode it around for the cameras. Kudos to his handlers for that one.
|
|
| 1300 | sarge33rd
ID: 178571611 Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 13:15
|
Romney and/or Huntsman, are the two current GOP candidates who IMHO, possess any 'mass appeal' at all, outside of their respective GOP base. Huntsman, by virtue of NOT being as widely known (thus not seen as extremist) as Perry, Bachmann et al...and Romney of course by virtue of having run before.
Pretty much anyone else from the current crop of GOP contenders, I dont see as having much shot at winning. (Though the very idea of Pres Perry is gddmn frightening. Ranks right there alongside the notion of Pres Palin..*shudder*)
|
|
| |
| 1302 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 19:20
|
Billionare Mark Cuban gets it (linkees not working on the computer i'm on at the moment)
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/21/3386097/cuban-on-millionaires-tax-what.html
"Go out there and get rich. Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes, your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be 'what a great problem to have,' and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes, you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you." - Mark Cuban
|
|
| 1303 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 20:10
|
Huntsman ... Got on a bike and rode it around for the cameras. Kudos to his handlers for that one. - MITH
Ever since Dukakis' tank ride and let's throw in Kerry's windsurfing, when was the last time a 'going for a ride' photo-op actually helped a campaign? I'm serious. Give me an example.
Are we 100% in agreement Huntsman's appearance was a positive? If I was managing a candidate he wouldn't be test-riding anything and risking a goofy picture. Because the media looooves a goofy gotcha moment.
|
|
| 1304 | sarge33rd
ID: 278472110 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 20:31
|
Except Huntsman is a noted motorcycle enthusiast, who participates in multiple charity rides in his home state. It is not at all out of character, for him to be on 2-wheels.
|
|
| 1305 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 20:54
|
I think Kerry really windsurfs too.
The question is does he look kool as Clint Eastwood on a bike and natural. Maybe so but it's certainly not a given that it would be a great moment in publicist mentoring...
|
|
| 1306 | sarge33rd
ID: 278472110 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 21:01
|
I think a photo of a candidate doing something they normally do anyway, is not hazardous at worse and beneficial at best. The issue with Dukakis and the tank. was that he looked like a friggin dork with that CVC helmet on and he was ENTIRELY out of his element.
|
|
| 1307 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 21:15
|
Why exactly did Kerry get hurt so bad with the windsurfing?
|
|
| 1308 | sarge33rd
ID: 278472110 Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 21:33
|
I dont recall that he did. Seems to me, it was that group of lying bstrd swift boat bullsh*tters, who hurt Kerry with blatantly false claims in advertising. Unfortunately, political ads are not required to contain one iota of truth.
|
|
| 1309 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Sep 22, 2011, 04:52
|
Yeah, the guys who knew him during the war and hated him, all liars. Everyone who disagrees with you is lying. Everywhere you look you see a liar.
|
|
| 1310 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Sep 22, 2011, 09:26
|
Yeah, the guys who knew him during the war and hated him, all liars.
well, we can't know if they were all liars, but some of them were CERTAINLY liars, and we can take an educated guess from that.
* they all signed sworn statements - one of them, Al French, admitted he had no knowledge of the details he had sworn to.
* their very first tv ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.
and there are many, many more inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their claims. But, truth rarely matters to you if the lies told are told about those you perceive as political "enemies".
you have time and time again supported liars, thieves, murderers, child rapists, and many other criminals, simply because they shared beliefs similar to your own. This is just another example.
|
|
| 1311 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Sep 22, 2011, 09:43
|
The windsurfing photo had no effect on Kerry's candidacy except in the minds of the perpetually cynical, which, granted, is probably a bigger percentage of the population than we care to admit, though not the actual voting citizenry.
While I don't think the Hunstman photo is any kind of positive for his campaign, neither is it a negative. But then, we're talking about critics who idolize photos of Sarah Palin with a high powered rifle killing a moose at close range, as if that type of recreation is more admirable than windsurfing and motorcycle riding.
|
|
| 1312 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Sep 22, 2011, 13:22
|
There's no question imagery helps. A huge portion of voters, maybe a majority, understand the issues considerably less than the average poster on this forum. I've discussed my mother-in-law previously. She can tell you why she votes Republican; personal responsibility, small government, yada yada. Ask her to reconcile that with the fact that she had my father-in-law's union-represented government-funded career in law enforcement to thank for her family's livelihood and she'll dismissively change the subject.
When she saw Sarah Palin for the first time, tuning in to the GOP convention to see who she'd be voting for for VP, she fell in love. Palin had her at 'pit bull with lipstick.'. She excitedly called my wife the next day, saying, "she's just like us!". Today she still couldn't distinguish a thing about Palin's politics from another Republican, but she identifies with the highly controlled image of Palin and that's what she supports.
Theres no question that Obama's image had a similar effect on other people in 2008. And I'm not saying Huntsman has anything like that gift.
And both McCain and Kerry were hampered by their images. Kerry whincing as he catches a football. That ridiculous sterile suit when he toured some plant. Saying his favorite Red Sox player was Manny Ortiz. The windsurfing photo (a senior citizen cannot look cool windsurfing - he just cant) was part of that. There was the 'who youd have a beer with factor'. McCain campaign events where 2 dozen people showed up. Knocking goods off the shelves at a photo op in a store and looking really old as he slowly bent over in reaction.
Imagery absolutely matters to undecided voters who don't hang on the issues, whether its moderates weighing a general election or primary voters chosing among similar flavors, and whether most of them realize it (and the pointlessness of such imagery) or not.
|
|
| 1313 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Sep 22, 2011, 15:14
|
That was really good post and I think very much on the mark.
|
|
| 1314 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 12:20
|
Debate Crowd Boos Gay Soldier
the new Conservatives: Cheering the death penalty, supporting the uninsured dying, booing a man fighting for their freedoms because of his sexual orientation.
idiots.
|
|
| 1315 | sarge33rd
ID: 48402311 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 12:40
|
idiotic candidate quote:
“What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with … our military right now. And that’s tragic,” Santorum argued.
Newsflash..the military has ALWAYS been a reflection of societal norms. Recall, the integration of black soldiers into other than all black units?
Fkn sanctimonious self-righteouos arse-holes.
|
|
| 1316 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 12:56
|
Santorum actually did OK with the first part of his answer -- talking about how the military should not be concerned with legal sexual behavior (i.e., no harassment, etc). And he said that soldiers who come out now would not be asked to leave the service if he is elected.
So far so good.
But then he said he would re-institute DADT. WTF?
|
|
| 1317 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 11:37
|
News flash: not every social theory should be tested in the military. Like testing equality theory by putting women on the front lines. That is idiotic. Many men will die needlessly in that experiment.
|
|
| 1318 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 11:42
|
Sarge
Legally you can put the toothpaste back in the tube. Even conservatives don't believe in prosecuting people for violating laws that are not in effect at the time of commission. However that doesn't mean laws can't change. Just because we once approved Thalidomide doesn't mean we can't unapprove it.
|
|
| 1319 | sarge33rd
ID: 118582410 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 11:58
|
women dont belong in combat? Tell that to an Israeli woman and lets see how long it takes you to pick yourself up off the ground.
MOST female soldiers I knew, would have been proud to have stood their turn in combat. Not anxious, but willing to take their turn. To blame them for your sexism (many men would die blah blah blah), is BS. Thats YOUR fault, not theirs.
The military IS a reflection of society. Just a fact. Cant change that fact, anymore than you can change the fact that the sun rises over the eastern horizon and sets over the western.
|
|
| 1320 | sarge33rd
ID: 118582410 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 12:00
|
and just let me add B, for one who refuses to wear the uniform, to BEGIN to pretend to "know whats best" for the military...is pure, unadulterated hogwash. Go climb a different tree, cause you aint welcome on the Army or Navy or Air Force or Marine or Coast Guard trees.
|
|
| 1321 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 12:22
|
Like testing equality theory by putting women on the front lines. That is idiotic.
what's idiotic, is that statement.
|
|
| 1322 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 16:23
|
not every social theory should be tested in the military
Exactly what social theory is being tested with the removal of DADT? The theory that gays exist, perhaps?
|
|
| 1323 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 17:57
|
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, [or to provide that threat].
The purpose is not to normalize homosexuality.
|
|
| 1324 | sarge33rd
ID: 118582410 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 18:10
|
Normal, is that which occurs free of outside influence. Since homosexuality fits that definition, it IS normal. Just as heterosexuality is normal.
What is ABNORMAL, is your air of superiority, in light of overwhelming evidence of the error of your position.
|
|
| 1325 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 18:13
|
I have no idea what you mean by "normalize homosexuality." People are, or are not, homosexually inclined.
I think you are confusing "not actively prosecuting people for their sexuality" with "accepting as normal people's sexuality even if different from mine."
There are lots and lots of things about people which don't affect military readiness. I just wish that conservatives would stop using the military to inject their social theories on what they believe is "normal."
|
|
| 1326 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Sep 25, 2011, 13:52
|
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things,
and this is exclusively the domain of straight people? Queers can't kill people?
|
|
| 1327 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 13:38
|
They've been doing it, and they can go on doing it without turning the military into a gay pride parade.
|
|
| 1328 | Tree
ID: 498372613 Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 14:37
|
Being openly gay does not equal marching in gay pride parade.
|
|
| 1329 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 15:40
|
What other jobs should we ban gays from doing, out of curiosity?
|
|
| 1330 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 16:53
|
Is the Australian military a "gay pride parade?"
Many on the far right seem to forget that the majority of the foreign troops we worked with, over the last decade, in Iraq and Afghanistan, had no barriers against openly gay members. To hear them tell it, the last decade was one big San Francisco bath house over there.
Or maybe not--reality does suck when it comes to the gay Chicken Littles.
|
|
| 1331 | sarge33rd
ID: 158472714 Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 15:47
|
First off B, not having to lie about who you are; is not the equivalent of flaunting who you are. A gay not having to lie about it, is not throwing a gay pride parade, anymore than a straight is committing rape simply by looking at a member of the opposite sex.
Your paranoia, your fear, your bias, your prejudice...all combine to provide ample evidence that your proclaimed Christianity is not genuine, but self serving. You arent Christian because you believe, you are Christian because you fear Hell. Wrong reason.
|
|
| 1332 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 19:03
|
you are Christian because you fear Hell. - Sarge
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
And for your information real christians let God be the final arbiter on all maters, rather than being blown around by whatever the latest trend happens to be.
|
|
| 1333 | sarge33rd
ID: 158472714 Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 19:12
|
I have never opposed gays in uniform. My criteria, is a simple one...can they and WILL they; shoot straight? Answer with a yes, and welcome to my foxhole. Answer with a no, and get the fk out of my AO.
Sexual orientation, means nothing to the target, so why should it matter to anyone else?
As for oyur Christianity...your actions, statements and conduct; speak FAR more loudly than any claims you might make. You do not, B you simply do not, conduct yourself like a Christian who actually FOLLOWS Christs example. You do however, conduct yourself like one who is comfortable in their sanctimonious superiority. I fear for you B. Your motives, are all wrong.
|
|
| 1334 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 19:19
|
rather than being blown around by whatever the latest trend happens to be.
The latest trend seems to be to keep gays out of the military. It isn't clear to me what Biblical principal is being followed here.
"Real Christians" probably wouldn't let their religion get so bound up in their politics.
|
|
| 1335 | Tree
ID: 19848287 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 08:48
|
more "why do they say these things?"
http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-senator-apologizes-aborigines-remark-004902882.html
A powerful Republican leader in the Alabama Senate apologized Tuesday for referring to blacks as "aborigines" on recordings played during a federal gambling corruption trial.
|
|
| 1336 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 10:21
|
Just who is more desperate for Gov Christie to enter the race...GOP primary voters or national political reporters?
|
|
| 1337 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 10:45
|
Why is the Obama loving media pushing Romney and Perry when Bachmann and Cain are the only two to have won a primary event?
Oh right, they don't like republicans or their values.
|
|
| 1338 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 10:53
|
A straw poll is an event? Ha.
Yes, Boldwin, the fix is in. Bacchman isn't going anywhere, as I told you a long time ago. It's because she's a moron, not because of globalists or the media. And Cain's just not qualified.
|
|
| 1339 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 11:03
|
Why does Baldwin ask rhetorical questions when he never listens to anyone but himself? Oh, right, he's that old man who mutters to himself in the corner, wasting bandwidth.
Nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine....
|
|
| |
| 1341 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 12:14
|
1337 is completely funny especially because it's completely wrong. (Or, more accurately, "not intended to be a factual statement", I guess.)
link
"Texas Rep. Ron Paul won a California straw poll, the state Republican Party announced in a statement Saturday night.
A total of 833 ballots were cast during the straw poll, the statement said.
Paul won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes."
Notably absent from the listing of top-3 candidates? Yeah, those two. At least Cain got twice as many votes as Thad McCotter.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1344 | sarge33rd
ID: 288172812 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 13:17
|
1342, is about as revealing as a story can get.
|
|
| |
| 1346 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 14:49
|
Bacchman is the new McCain (without the GOP nomination, that is).
|
|
| 1347 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 17:00
|
Heads up for you GOP primary fantasy team coaches: The field sucks so badly, even Mike Huckabee is considering coming back for a run.
Apparently Christie is being badgered endlessly to enter as well, but I think he's far too smart to make such a dumb move.
|
|
| 1348 | sarge33rd
ID: 22863018 Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 19:06
|
As an Obama supporter, I'm glad Huntsman isnt taken more seriously by his own party, As an observer, I am stymied as to why Huntsman isnt taken more seriously by his own party,
|
|
| 1349 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 23:40
|
How pray tell does he represent conservatives? I can't think of anything he offers, so I'm really looking forward to this answer.
|
|
| 1350 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Sep 30, 2011, 23:48
|
Supports a right-to-life amendment.
Wants to ban second trimester abortions entirely.
Pro school vouchers
Opposed the individual mandate for health insurance.
Opposes college tuition for children of illegal immigrants.
Any stimulus funds to be given to the states as block grants for them to use as they see fit.
Lower tax rates across the board, and fewer tax brackets.
Crazy stuff, Huntsman. No more so than the idea that we need to solve our problems together instead of demonizing the other side.
And it is the last that has the Far Right's panties in a twist. They simply cannot stand a candidate who isn't as addicted to confrontation as they are.
|
|
| 1351 | sarge33rd
ID: 22863018 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 01:33
|
How pray tell does he NOT B? Other than thinking there are ways to govern w/o calling your fellow, but disagreeing Americans, anarchists or communists or Marxists etc etc?
IOW, from where I sit, he isnt ALL that different from main stream rep EXCEPT, he doesnt spew forth the vitriol with the same gusto and enthusiasm. (Or at all, from what I have heard him say.)
|
|
| 1352 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 02:07
|
What a terrific post 1350 is. I can't think of a reason why Chris Christie should be regarded as as a truer conservative than Jon Huntsman. Yet if Christie entered he would instantly leap ahead of Huntsman in every GOP poll, including among the TP. The the biggest principle Huntsman lacks is the modern conservative prerequisite of furious rage at the wrong kind of Americans. I'd also bet my next paycheck that Huntsman could swiftly move up to the top tier if he'd give in and feed the anti-Obama hate on the hard right.
|
|
| 1353 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 11:09
|
As a 25 year resident of Utah, I can tell you why Huntsman's candidacy hasn't taken hold. The rest of the country looks at Utah as some weird place where everyone has multiple wives and you can't get an alcoholic drink, mythologies that belie a state that offers as fine a quality of life as any in the nation.
No other state has the stigma that Utah has, a burden that Huntsman or any other Utah politician would encounter when running for national office. It's shocking the hatred and prejudice shown toward Mormons by mainstream Christians in this country. Even those who don't hold such animosity are wary of Mormons, as we've seen with Mitt Romney. Then there's Huntsman accepting a job in the Obama administration, which is tantamount to treason among the radical right.
Notice that Boldwin says:
How pray tell does he represent conservatives?
Not how does he represent the nation. Of course Huntsman represents conservatives just fine, but Boldwin and friends aren't concerned with conservatism, they want a radical ideologue like Michelle Bachmann, who advances as her qualifications as President:
"I radically abandoned myself to Jesus Christ."
Whatever, Michelle. I'm more interested in how you deal with the Chinese over trade issues than pandering to the faithful at Jerry Falwell U. I'm fearful you don't have the resolve to represent all Americans, regardless of their religious persuasion, or those with none at all. I'm fearful you'll govern based on Biblical scripture instead of 21st century reality. Ironically, I have no such fear concerning Huntsman, even though he's the one Bachmann devotees would like to tarnish as a religious whacko.
|
|
| 1354 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 12:01
|
Jon Huntsman's Secret Life As A Progressive
Because when you haven't lost 'Think Progress', you sir are in the wrong party.
If we put all the faux republicans the establishment has tried to force down the electorate's throat you could build...Obama, really. Let's add Huntsman's position on AGW and 'Cap-N-Trade'...a pinch of Romneycare...Perry digging tunnels under the border and waving the other three fourths of Mexico thru...[and let's not forget he was to the FLDS as Clinton was to Waco]...
|
|
| 1355 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 15:33
|
Uh, right--because a Democratic website doesn't hate you, you must not be a Republican at all.
|
|
| 1356 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 17:12
|
If a progressive site, not just a democrat site, thinks you are a right proper progressive...and let's not mince words...that means 'progressing' towards socialism...
You are only posing as a conservative which if true would make you a bulwork against marxism.
|
|
| 1357 | sarge33rd
ID: 49953116 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 17:53
|
B, you are precisely what is wrong with both, this country AND the Rep party today. Reagan, couldnt be a Rep today. He'd be back in the dem party where he began. Why? Like ke said then of the dems.. "I didnt leave my party, they left me."
You are B, an extremist whacko, and as such, you are very, VERY dangerous.
|
|
| 1358 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 19:00
|
You really don't like the majority who swept into power in 2010, do you?
|
|
| 1359 | sarge33rd
ID: 49953116 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 19:22
|
there was an air of discontent, fomented by the RNC and since then, made worse BY the RNC. The "all or nothing" approach the Reps are taking, is going to result in your getting nothing. The country, is not likely to stand by,m while your kind hold routine governmental actions hostage, like some spoiled child whose turn it is with the ball on the playground that afternoon.
But to answer your question..No,. I LOATHE the attitude which has assumed a power and authority it does not have. I did not bleed, and my comrades did not die on the battlefield, for this nation to be usurped by a radical element and turned back 500 years to the dark Ages once again.
|
|
| 1360 | sarge33rd
ID: 49953116 Sat, Oct 01, 2011, 19:30
|
GOP Congressional Staffer revolted by his party retires vs continue to serve it
Pretty sure it's been posted before, but doubt you paid it much heed. Here is a portion, of what your parties, and the nations, trouble is if the Reps gain a majority IN Washington DC:
3. Give me that old time religion. Pandering to fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s, religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file.... {I added the underline}
There you have it...religious CRANKS, are THE major element of the Rep rank and file.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1363 | sarge33rd
ID: 37922510 Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 11:22
|
telling paragraph from your link there PD:
“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.” {emphasis added}
I am gladdened to read that many small business owners have drawn the same conclusions as to the cause of the financial crisis...LACK of regulation, not excessive regulation.
|
|
| 1364 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 21:15
|
I can't get past this standard whopper..."Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations".
No. Republicans favor low taxes for everyone.
Democrats can only get away with raising everyone's taxes by focusing on the rich and pretending that's the only cash they have their beady little eyes set on.
|
|
| 1365 | sarge33rd
ID: 37922510 Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 21:23
|
No B...Republicans do NOT favor lower taxes for everyone. THAT, is not true. The Republicans, dont give a rats ass about you, unless you make 7 figures/yr +. Less than that and Republican ...you're too deep in the kool-aid,
|
|
| 1366 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 21:42
|
The koolaid is thinking democrats care about anything except power.
|
|
| 1367 | sarge33rd
ID: 37922510 Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 22:13
|
Probably, quite true. Equally so however, if not more so, for Republicans. After all...which party wants to dictate who you can pray to?, who can you fall in love with?, what constitutes a "real" American? (apparently, my blood on the battlefield and birth in fly over country, doesnt qualify me)
|
|
| 1368 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 09:48
|
Thomas Friedman with an excellent piece.
|
|
| 1369 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:08
|
Sarge
When you were growing up in a red state, and when you were fighting, did you think it was to make the world safe for government that took all your money and spent it better than you could?
Sorry, that is not the American dream.
You must have been Gomer Pyle in boot camp tho. If only we had drill sargents yelling and screaming at us our whole lives, stamping us with a number and breaking down our individuality and will. Here are my papers, just tell me which line to stand in. Paradise.
|
|
| 1370 | sarge33rd
ID: 52922613 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:13
|
Wrong yet again, oh self absorbed one...
As I grew up, I learned critical thinking skills, logical deductive and cognizant reasoning.
My father for ex, a blue collar construction worker/farmer his adult life. HATES unions and always has. Died in the wool Republican. Why did he have a 40 hr work week with overtime, vacation days, health benefits? Oh yeah, those fkn unions he spent his entire life railing against, benefitted him...his entire life.
I've seen the contradiction that is the Rep party for my entire life. I've seen the Reps idolize and all but anoint Reagan with Sainthood, yet today,.,Reagan would be a Dem, not a Rep. He was nowhere close, never, far enough to the right for his party today.
|
|
| 1371 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:24
|
As usual just another liberal thinking Reagan actually liked those deals with the devil, namely Tip O'Neil.
Put Reagan in the WH six years later working with Newt Gingerich and see how many tax increases there would have been, how much new government red tape, how much obstruction of business, how many giveaway programs.
You probably believe Newt was too far right for Reagan too, bwahaha, seriously...too funny.
|
|
| 1372 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:42
|
Oh and about your father, every day he put his farmer's work ethic into his construction job, every time he did extraordinary work, everytime he deserved to be recognized for exceptional work, he had to supply that reward from his own character...
Because the union stole the rest.
|
|
| 1373 | sarge33rd
ID: 52922613 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:42
|
B? REPUBLICAN power chiefs, say that Reagan was too far left for todays rep party. Why YOU, think that YOU, have ALL the answers, and at the same time think YOU are the a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e picture of Christianity....is so incredulous. Honestly, you are SUCH a self-contradiction it is insanely comical.
|
|
| 1374 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:43
|
Tip wasn't the devil. I realize that the first step toward hating someone is to dehumanize them.
But it 'taint Christian to do so.
Stop doing it, or turn in your WWJD button.
|
|
| 1375 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:46
|
government that took all your money
A show of hands. How many who frequent here has had the government take all their money? And when I say government, I'm assuming that federal government is the entity in question.
|
|
| 1376 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 16:49
|
Pretending Reagan liked those compromises with O'Neil and that those poison pills he had to swallow were his idea is not honest. Your willingness to tell the big lie to convince God-knows-who that Reagan was practically a closet liberal represents typical 'ends justifies the means' devilish thinking from the left.
|
|
| 1377 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 17:03
|
No one is saying Reagan "liked" anything. But he did them, and didn't demonize his political opponents.
Two things you aren't willing to do, it seems.
|
|
| 1378 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 17:23
|
As usual just another liberal thinking Reagan actually liked those deals with the devil, namely Tip O'Neil.
Pretending Reagan liked those compromises with O'Neil and that those poison pills he had to swallow were his idea is not honest.
does anything concrete and honest come out of your mouth anymore?!?!?
no, of course Reagan didn't like those deals. but he understood the Art of the Deal, that compromise is necessary to get at least some of what you want.
and, as PD pointed out, he didn't dehumanize his political opponents. here's a bit by Chris Matthews, who, as Tip O'Neill's top aide during his battles with Ronald Reagan, would certainly know a HELL of a lot more than you do about the relationship between Reagan and O'Neill, as well as Democrats and Republicans during that time frame.
About this time of year three decades ago, Reagan went to the Capitol to deliver the State of the Union address. His designated "holding room" was the speaker's ceremonial office just off the House floor. I was a senior aide to the speaker, and I thought a little kidding was in order.
"Mr. President, welcome to the room where we plot against you," I said.
"Oh, no, not after 6," he replied. "The speaker says that here in Washington we're all friends after 6."
and
"Tip had the last word and it was good one," Reagan jotted in his diary after one meeting. Another entry: "I'm having more luck with Demos than Repubs. Asked O'Neill if I could address a joint session next week. He agreed."
To soften the edges, they would share lunches from time to time, and always on St. Patrick's Day.
"It's Tip's birthday and we had a good time telling stories - Irish stories," Reagan wrote. That lunch, his aide Ken Duberstein later told me, lasted till 3 p.m.
as politicians, they fought tooth and nail, but as MEN, they were compatriots, both honestly believing they were fighting the good fight, and both respecting their biggest political rival.
O'Neill visited Reagan in the hospital after the latter was shot. O'Neill kissed Reagan's forehead, and they prayed together.
Based on your comments toward other people, you don't know the first thing about being a man, never mind a GOOD MAN. and you likely wouldn't have prayed in earnest with a rival. Rather, you'd prefer to vilify and call him names. You're nothing like the man you claim as one of your political heroes, and you really don't know as much about that man as you claim to.
|
|
| 1379 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 18:52
|
Just stop telling me he was further left than the Tea Party because he wasn't.
|
|
| 1380 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 18:54
|
And thanks for all the good natured 'help'.
|
|
| 1381 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 19:08
|
Just stop telling me he was further left than the Tea Party
When you think of showing nominal respect as something to the "left of the the Tea Party" then your myth deserves the puncture wounds reality inflicts upon it.
|
|
| 1382 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 19:08
|
I am, of course, happy to claim "respect for others" for the "Left" since you've shown you don't want it and have no need for it.
|
|
| 1383 | sarge33rd
ID: 52922613 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 19:36
|
re 1379...he was MILES and MILES and MILES and MILES....left of the Tea Party.
|
|
| 1384 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Oct 06, 2011, 20:46
|
Just stop telling me he was further left than the Tea Party because he wasn't.
translated: i am going to keep throwing things against the wall because i get proven wrong time and time again...by people i call morons.
And thanks for all the good natured 'help'.
you're welcome. i figure you might actually want some real facts about your hero, instead of the ones you and the other wingnuts invent.
|
|
| 1385 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 12:00
|
I wonder if...
A - Reagan was actually so good at politics that he actually had socialists convinced he was one of them...
B - or if this is all just a cynical ploy to rewrite history and influence the young and weak-minded.
Since I don't think even Reagan could have pulled off option-A I'm guessing option-B.
|
|
| 1386 | Tree
ID: 4691711 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 12:06
|
You forgot option C - reality, and the fact that people with different opinions can still respect each other.
But the former is nothing new for you, and the latter is a simple concept you can't comprehend.
|
|
| 1387 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 12:31
|
Heh. Yeah, it is either Reagan was exactly like Boldwin says but fooled millions, or that we're all just lying about him.
Since time after time after time on these boards we've used the words of Reagan himself, and/or those who worked with him, to refute the nonsense revisionist history the Tea Party does about Reagan to make him their own, I suspect a third dimension in thinking is necessary for the TP members (or their apologists) to understand the truth. Not holding my breath on this.
|
|
| 1388 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 13:42
|
I suspect a third dimension in thinking is necessary for the TP members (or their apologists) to understand the truth. Not holding my breath on this.
Baldwin has actually said that truth, honesty, and integrity matter little to him as long as liberals and their causes (i.e. socialism, marxism, gay marriage, Oprah) are destroyed.
|
|
| 1389 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 14:40
|
Cain's surge is almost all pulled from Perry. From FiveThirtyEight.com:
|
|
| 1390 | sarge33rd
ID: 8940711 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 14:54
|
Funny isnt it? The more4 Perry talked, the more and more people thought he was an idiot. (sorta like Palin, Bachmann etc etc)
|
|
| 1391 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 19:45
|
#1388
Tree telling an outright lie once again. What a civil forum.
|
|
| 1392 | sarge33rd
ID: 8940711 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 20:08
|
Actually B, that one wasnt a lie at all. You did say as much, not all that long ago.
|
|
| 1393 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 20:09
|
Yeah, don't even make a charge like that without linking to your evidence.
|
|
| 1394 | sarge33rd
ID: 8940711 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 20:33
|
Wouldnt matter B, you said it in a heated exchange about false allegations made by one of your rightwingnut whackjobs. You defended him by saying that it wouldnt matter if he kied or not, provided it defeated leftwing, marxxist, socialist blah blah blah.
You said it, and I dont feel the need to filter through 700 of your BS posts looking for it, If you arent man enough to stand behind your own comments...I'm flat ass done with you.
|
|
| 1395 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 20:42
|
Being a troll is bad enuff, but your repeated slander and lies is even a step down from that. I won't bother appealing your *cough* sense of decency.
|
|
| 1396 | sarge33rd
ID: 8940711 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 20:54
|
anyone else care to address it?
|
|
| 1397 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 21:15
|
I'm trying to find the one you referenced Sarge because I specifically remember it but I can't find it. Probably a pretty good chance he deleted it after realizing how absurd it was.
That leaves me hunting for someone who quoted it, which I am positive happened a few times.
|
|
| 1398 | sarge33rd
ID: 8940711 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 21:33
|
TY Farn,. I clearly recall the gist of the conversation in which he stated it, but not the specific persons. Thus making it difficult to track down.
Still, that 3 of us recall it, tends to lend credence TO the recollection.
|
|
| 1399 | Tree
ID: 19922721 Fri, Oct 07, 2011, 22:22
|
Pretty sure it was during one of his countless defenses of filmmaker James o'keefe and his criminal activities.
|
|
| 1400 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 17:55
|
Well I have this to say about these liberals and their outrageous slander.
Example#1
The idea that O'Keefe would stage a scene in which he showed himself and his assistant dressed up as pimp and whore going to ACORN, when they didn't actually wear those clothes is an absurd cause. It is just stagecraft for their video. How they were dressed is immaterial and we can see how they actually were dressed later in the video so how was it deceptive anyway? It was just making it clear to the viewer that the premise was that they were pimp and prostitute. That they didn't want to be so flamboyant as to raise suspicions at ACORN shouldn't be an obstacle to understanding the premise and they took care of that.
To forever hold that kind of thing up as dishonest either attached to O'Keefe or me is ridiculous and just shows how bereft of actual defense liberals and ACORN are that they have to focus on such a fatuous distraction to the complete exclusion of discussing the facts revealed in the investigation.
If O'Keefe hadn't found blockbuster criminality you wouldn't have to distract from the facts to cover for ACORN.
Example#2
In one of PD's lowest moments ever and perhaps the moment he permanently lost his serious poster/non-troll card, he created a whole days worth of slander out of me rearanging blocks of cut-n-paste from a huge article.
It was completely innocent. He could not and did not try to show that I had changed the meaning or the arguments.
Making that huge article comprehensible in tiny form required breaking it down into a list of organized specific points. I did not have the luxury that the writer of the long article had of weaving in and out of the narative back and forth between elements.
But just so lurkers know, on that basis of that weak tea, these indecent trolls feel free to slander me as a liar, worst example of christian ever, subhuman, dangerous...
...when you see someone descending to that level of ad hominem you know he has no logical winning arguments to defend his opinions.
[or that that person has just been driven over the edge by vicious slander for weeks/months and is finally responding in kind, something I hope to avoid]
|
|
| 1401 | sarge33rd
ID: 58922817 Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 18:23
|
except B, that I never called you a liar. I said, you once stated, clearly, that lying didnt matter to you *IF*, it led to the defeat of marxist-socialist-leftist-liberalism. And THAT, is the gospel truth..you DID make that statement. As first pointed out by Tree, then agreed to by myself and then Farn too states HE recalls seeing such a post from you not long ago.
Do not try and blame someone else, for your own words. Wont work, lurkers or no.
|
|
| 1402 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 19:07
|
Link?
|
|
| 1403 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 20:16
|
I've spent hours the past 2 days trying to find it with no luck. I'm assuming he deleted it which means I have to find where someone else quoted it (I vaguely recall Tree ripping him for it).
Its hard to find particular posts by him because he posts every single thought he has so you have to wade through thousands of posts.
I did find a great representation of his brilliant mindset though:
Post #97 "I could just as well point out that virtually everyone in the Dem constellation is a stupid marxist. Some consciously evil, morally stupid and heartless, some well-meaning but soft-headed and misled."
|
|
| 1404 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 20:59
|
I was just providing a mirror image of the previous post so the previous poster could feel how he sounded and looked. Blame the previous poster for the style there.
|
|
| 1405 | sarge33rd
ID: 58922817 Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 21:19
|
You know what? You arent worth it anymore B. You're...just....not...worth it.
|
|
| 1406 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 02:15
|
I've spent hours the past 2 days trying to find it with no luck. I'm assuming he deleted it which means I have to find where someone else quoted it (I vaguely recall Tree ripping him for it).
there are several posts where Baldwin idolizes O'Keefe, while excusing his criminal activities.
the original post in question, where he praises crimes committed as long as liberals are painted in a bad light by doing so, does seem to now be missing, but i'm going to continue looking anyway.
|
|
| 1407 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 4192910 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 11:04
|
ugh. Keep feeding him guys, and he'll keep coming back. Ignore the lunacy, and maybe he'll get the message.
To the larger point though; somehow the idea of compromise has become bad. I'm not exactly sure when, (my guess is the Contract with America era) but politicians only view compromise as losing political ground,rather than as an agreed upon negotiation to a fair end.
And I get that in order to reach the zenith of their political power in the last decade, the GOP is dependent - to an extent unprecedented in recent political history - on a single ideological group, the uber conservatives/TPer's at the base, but there is a huge divide between ideology and governance. Governing has to do with doing what is best for the largest majority and for the country as a whole. TP pledges, right wing ideology and an uncompromising set of beliefs are fine in the classroom or while blogging away. It encourages discussion and helps to move everyone closer to the center, which is where the best of government can typically be found. We love to parallel the countrys issues with examples from "real life" (i.e. my household runs on budget limitations, shouldn't the federal government) so here's one - compromise (along with communication) is the key to successfully running a family or a household even if the interests of the people involved are split right down the middle. My kids would like nothing more than to be on the ice cream diet, and I'm more of a brussel sprouts guy, so we compromise to sugar snap peas.
I digress.
Maintaining power, with as slim a majority as possible seems to be the new boasting point. "Whats important now is that (insert name of my party here) dig in their heels and do not compromise" is now a rallying cry. St. Ronald was mentioned earlier in the thread, and I won't presume to project my thoughts on what Reagan was thinking and feeling when he made decisions and often *gasp* compromises to govern. For all the praise by current conservatives forhis presidency, its important to note that many conservatives of his day werent big fans of all of his policies, especially his negotiations with Gorbachev. At the time, many in the GOP felt reaching out to the Soviets was a sign of weakness to negotiate with the "evil empire". Today you get booted from the GOP if you reach across the aisle!
You almost never hear about the fact he reached a deal with Democrats on Social Security and hesigned off on some sort of tax increase every year of his presidency after 1982, including one that was (at the time) the largest tax increase in American history. Saint Reagan realized compromise isnt the same as concession, and he understood the importance of consensus.
|
|
| 1408 | sarge33rd
ID: 3936910 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 11:36
|
superb post sox...absolutely spot on.
|
|
| 1409 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 20:39
|
1) Is it really true that you cannot conceive of an issue that cannot be compromised? Solomon, the baby and the two 'mothers'?
2) Your side has been winning for so long ratcheting us ever closer to the abyss that we are now at the point of no return or recovery. People finally came within sight of the cliff ahead.
"Go ahead, hurl yourself into the abyss."
"No"
"Ok, just put one foot over the edge."
|
|
| 1410 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 21:19
|
This "abyss" being what, exactly? Gay marriage? Affordable health care? Science-driven science policy?
|
|
| |
| 1412 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 21:36
|
PD#1410
I could tell you but then someone would have to kill the post judging by the censorship lately.
|
|
| 1413 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 23:31
|
I could tell you but then someone would have to kill the post judging by the censorship lately.
translated - i got nothin'!
|
|
| 1415 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 10955107 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 08:58
|
Well, I suppose I should reply.
1. My side is the first issue. Your immediate assumption that it has to be adversarial is problem numero uno. And just by feeling that way, I am in fact, already doing what "my side" does all the time - dropping my guard and looking for commonality in our differences. Which exposes the lie to "...your side has been winning for so long ratcheting us ever closer to the abyss that we are now at the point of no return or recovery".
Really?
Watered down healthcare bill. The debt ceiling debacle. Medicare cuts. Environmental and food inspection funding shortfalls. Protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest. GOP filibusters of economic watchdog policies.
Where, exactly, is "my" agenda steamrolling yours towards the abyss?
Around 40% of the American population self-IDs as conservative, while 20% self-ID as liberal. You can argue all day long about what people really mean when they tell pollsters they're conservative or progressive, but for any politician running for office those numbers equal a huge bump for the conservative guy to start with. If you're looking for a reason why "my" politicians have to compromise more, well, duh. And the GOP has done a terrific job of branding themselves as well. They are the 'all-american Marlboro man' to the Dems logical but wimpy nerd. And let's not even start in on money. Which is the party of Big Oil, Big Business, and Wall Street?
I used to at least have to do a little googling or put thought into my responses. Boldwin's "arguments" are a step or two down from Baldwin's circa four or five years ago. Sharpening steel, indeed.
|
|
| 1416 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 10:36
|
#1412: HAHAHAHAHA. Nice. So you would respond with information about your slanderous charges, if only there wasn't this "censor" around?
Jeez. I suppose that since the process problem with the Right these days is that they automatically play the "I'm going to be a dick" card, that being forced to be civil might indeed seem to be censorship.
|
|
| 1417 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:32
|
Heck no, I mean several threads which weren't personal or slanderous at all. They were just discussing labels [or really philosophies and hegelian synthesis] that liberals in Europe would embrace proudly.
|
|
| 1418 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:36
|
Really I never thot I'd see the day when posting a newsweek cover here would be a censoring offense that would take about a nanosecond to implement.
That is a level of thot and speech policing that is downright frightening.
|
|
| 1419 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:40
|
Here, I'll show you what get's censored these days.
|
|
| 1420 | sarge33rd
ID: 329391011 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:41
|
just curious..why 1417-1419 are 3 seperate posts? Consolidate your thoughts, vs posting each and every one you have, as you have them/
|
|
| 1421 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:46
|
Here is the abyss:

"Just in the knick of time I looked at his hand"
The Tea Party Americans are not willing to go irrevocably to the bottom of that pit and we are so close to the bottom that dragging our feet and only taking half-steps won't save us from the bottom either.
|
|
| 1422 | sarge33rd
ID: 329391011 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:49
|
That you truly hold such a perception, I do not doubt. That you truly hold such a perception however, does not make it factually accurate.
|
|
| 1423 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 15:54
|
Well we can't discuss that because that thread was nuked.
|
|
| 1424 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Oct 10, 2011, 16:55
|
your cup of paranoia doth runneth over.
|
|
| 1425 | Perm Dude
ID: 549411117 Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 21:51
|
Christie endorses Romney.
After Cain takes the lead in some polls, the Establishment GOP is starting to circle the wagons around the only candidate they can hold their nose for.
|
|
| |
| 1427 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 10:31
|
Shame on Cain for lying about it. He was right to begin with - the Fed does not need to be audited.
|
|
| 1428 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 10:45
|
Agreed.
|
|
| 1429 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 13:40
|
Let's get this straight.
Ron Paul is adamantly demanding an audit of the Fed.
That is a good thing. The Fed is a foreign owned entity that does not have America's interests at heart. It siphons off America's wealth using a ridiculous indefensible franchise they never should have been given in the first place. Many early presidents and the FF were very clear on why a central bank must never never be allowed to arise.
While Cain may be right that there is plenty of internal monitoring within the Fed, that doesn't mean Americans would accept what they would learn from an audit of this secretive foreign leech.
That Cain is finessing his positions on the Fed speaks to the fact that his involvement with the fed is a huge political liability with his base.
His involvement also explains why he is the only tea party candidate with any shot at power elite campaign financing. If the tea party cannot be tricked into supporting a power elite RINO Cain is the power elite's final least desired [in their eyes] fallback position.
That he sees nothing wrong with the Fed? Well lots of well meaning people are involved with other power elite vehicles without understanding what's really going on such as with the CFR. Seeing the day to day operations of the Fed does not make you an expert on the effects of the Fed over time nor does it make you privy to the strategies and motives of the handful of rich foreign owners.
|
|
| 1430 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 14:08
|
Just learn to look and move on, people.
|
|
| 1431 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 14:40
|
So is that you guarding the interests of the little people and the 99% from your perch on Wall Street, Razor?
|
|
| 1432 | walk
ID: 348442710 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 14:52
|
How is the Fed a foreign owned entity? Thanks.
|
|
| |
| 1434 | PV On golf course
ID: 18621911 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:15
|
Just a week ago Cain was the "real deal."
|
|
| 1435 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:22
|
Walk"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control. - source But you were going to protect us from the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, weren't you?
|
|
| 1436 | walk
ID: 348442710 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:27
|
Thanks for that info. Interesting.
|
|
| 1437 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:28
|
PV
At this moment he looks like the only realistic shot at anything honestly tea party winning the republican presidential nomination.
Has he got a connection or two I wish weren't there? How ya gonna avoid that?
|
|
| 1438 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:48
|
Walk
You are welcome. It's almost like they have a license to print money, no?
|
|
| 1439 | walk
ID: 348442710 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:53
|
No, I am sorry, Boldwin. While I found the historical excerpt interesting, I do not agree with the view. It is important to understand though what people think, and what drives their point of view.
|
|
| 1440 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 16:56
|
Yes, a text-based, jumbled illustration from 35 years ago proves it - the Fed is run by foreigners. Good stuff.
|
|
| 1441 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 17:36
|
Have fun finding any regional branch of the Fed let alone the main two governing bodies, which isn't controlled by obvious Rothschild cronies. You can count their names on your fingers. It's really a tight club working for the same family who George Soros works for. Wealth [and power] really is unduly concentrated.
|
|
| 1442 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 17:47
|
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” - Thomas Jefferson
Wake up, tomorrow got here.
|
|
| 1443 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 48901218 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 19:01
|
Oh good, a "Founding Fathers" blip in a thread. The elite of their day that the GOP and their parrots trots out cherry picked quotes from to demonstrate how "in touch" they are with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and our early rule of law.
Ugh.
I'd like to add one, but it sounds kinda Socialist, so it must be from a radical fringe type who had little to do with framing anything important.
"There are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
James Madison
|
|
| 1444 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 19:06
|
The Jefferson is fake. as is much of the outrage by the Right.
|
|
| 1445 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 22:36
|
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England,
It's really a tight club working for the same family who George Soros works for.
So, if the Rothschilds control the Bank of England, and, in 1992, George Soros became known as the "man who broke the Bank of England," is it possible that your claim that Soros works for them simply a total lack of objectivity in researching the subject?
|
|
| 1446 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 00:18
|
Just to set the record straight, I'm not dismissing the Soros/Rothschild connection. One of my favorite journalists, William Engdahl, offered this scathing 1996 indictment of Soros and details many of his dealings over the decades. But Engdahl also relies on a lot of speculation and innuendo mixed in with his usually dependable investigative skills. For example:
But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild group was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI. The key figure was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the BCCI Swiss subsidiary, Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA; at the same time, he ran the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG, and sat in London as a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons, Hartmann was also a business partner of Helmut Raiser, friend of de Picciotto, and linked to Nordex.
Hartmann was also chairman of the Swiss affiliate of the Italian BNL bank, which was implicated in the Bush administration illegal transfers to Iraq prior to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Atlanta branch of BNL, with the knowledge of George Bush when he was vice president, conduited funds to Helmut Raiser's Zug, Switzerland company, Consen, for development of the CondorII missile program by Iraq, Egypt, and Argentina, during the Iran-Iraq War. Hartmann was vice-chairman of another secretive private Geneva bank, the Bank of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank, a bank whose chairman, Bruce Rappaport, was one of the illegal financial conduits for Col. Oliver North's Contra drugs-for-weapons network during the late 1980. North also used the BCCI as one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds.
Using the six degrees of Kevin Bacon as a guide, Ronald Reagan worked for the Rothschilds.
|
|
| 1447 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 05:33
|
PV
Nice try no cigar. Soros stole the equivalent of twenty pounds from every person in England. He did not impoverish the Rothschild family and the Bank of England did not retaliate against Soros as they could have.
They forced Britain off the Exchange Rate Mechanism and raided the Bank of England's reserves but guess what? The Bank of England is a central bank. They are authorized to print money by the government. "What a horror, we'll have to buy a extra barrel of ink."
|
|
| 1448 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 05:46
|
PV
And Dr. Alfred Hartmann is the managing director of the BCCI Swiss branch while at the same time he runs the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG and in London he's a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons.
How you think Rothschilds is separated from BCCI by six degrees of separation is beyond me.
|
|
| 1449 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 09:08
|
How you think Rothschilds is separated from BCCI by six degrees of separation is beyond me.
It's beyond you because I didn't say that or suggest that. What is suggested is that all the "is linked to" claims end up at the feet of the Reagan administration - North also used the BCCI as one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds.
Most of what's discussed regarding the Rothschild/Soros connection is almost 20 years old and older, yet your claim is that George Soros works for, present tense. This ignores that Soros has closed his Quantum fund to outside investors and returned $1 billion to investors. It ignores that the Rothschild family has competing interests, and there is scant evidence that the family acts in concert in 2011 to control world economic conditions, any more than Great Britain can control world events currently like they did when they were the world's foremost colonial power. It ignores the current position of China as a global economic power, which has severely diminished the power and influence of the European banking cartels that the Rothschilds have dominated for hundreds of years.
So, statements like: The Fed is a foreign owned entity
and
Have fun finding any regional branch of the Fed let alone the main two governing bodies, which isn't controlled by obvious Rothschild cronies. You can count their names on your fingers. It's really a tight club working for the same family who George Soros works for. Wealth [and power] really is unduly concentrated.
are not the result of objective diligent research on your part. They're conclusions based on blind acceptance of internet sites with questionable motives who can make claims that may have a basis in reality, but present speculation and innuendo beyond facts in play.
You claim that names of obvious Rothschild cronies that control the Fed at every level can be counted on your fingers. Since you seem to think you have that information at the ready, let's see the names and the evidence they are Rothschild cronies. I have 10 fingers.
|
|
| 1450 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 10:15
|
i always like how Baldwin ignores the posts where his comments and quotes are proven false.
|
|
| 1451 | sarge33rd
ID: 58959139 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:12
|
<--has developed a deep respect not only for PVs research/communication skills, but a bordering envy for his patience. Gonna put he and MITH on the same plane as for their research/communication talents.
|
|
| 1452 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:21
|
Regarding post 1312 and the image factor, I often chat politics with my second-cousin in Maryland. She's now an Evangelical who has mostly abandoned the RCC and like a lot of people, she never thought much about politics until 9/11. She's since settled in as a devoted Republican and in the last couple of years, simply enamored by the Tea Party. She's quite a bit better versed in policy issues than my mother-in-law but still runs into self contradictions, having difficulty reconciling her support for a hopefull Christie campaign with the hardline TP stances she'd taken recently.
Interestingly, this devoted Christian who adored Palin as much as my mother-in-law but dropped her as her 2012 hopeful earlier this year in favor of Christie, explains her previous support for Palin by saying she "walked the walk" on the pro-life issue. But she dropped her for a governor who's pro-life record falls well short of what most evangelicals demand. In fairness she did grow up in central NJ so I imagine thats a factor.
The other day after being out of touch for a little while, I asked her over a game of Words with Friends if she was disappointed that Christie will not run. She said that she was and that she'll have to learn to like Romney. I suggested that Christy and Romney are probably much closer policy-wise than a lot of people realize, but that I wouldn't offer an opinion on whether that makes Romney a real conservative or Christie a RINO (one of the various disparaging terms shed previously used to describe Mitt Romney).
Her reply was to agree they are close (she chose the term "moderate" this time) but explained that she liked Christie for his "attitude" and "spunk".
I'm not trying to pigeonhole GOP voters as stupid. Just providing another example from people I personaly deal with to support my point about how image matters more than anything else to most voters. It's no less true on the left.
|
|
| 1453 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:26
|
Thanks for the kind words Sarge.
|
|
| 1454 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 11:35
|
re 1452: that is why the taller candidate usually wins.
|
|
| 1455 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:56
|
PV
That's easy. I can do 2/3 of them without even looking it up.
Morgans Kuhn Loeb Lehman Warburg Schiff Rockafeller Brown Harriman Lazard Schroder
|
|
| 1456 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:40
|
BTW this really gets to be a wild goose chase for the average person that would take months of work. For example is William R. Hartman on the board of the Chicago branch of the Fed related to Dr. Alfred Hartmann of post#1448?
I'd bet a pretty penny that he is. But try finding out. I researched looking at Connect the Networks, Muckety, Capitol IQ, wiki, his college, etc and tho I found out he's been the CEO of countless financial institutions centered in the NE as you would expect from a Rothschild crony I couldn't quickly even find out which financial institutions he's been CEO of besides his current positions in one bank and the Chicago Fed.
This would take a month or three of dedicated research and I will happily differ to the guy in post#1435 who actually looked into congressional banking committee documents to do that resarch.
|
|
| 1457 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:44
|
PV
And you think dumping Hartmann off at the feet of Ronald Reagan does anything to undermine my position?
Hartmann is one of the guys who set George Bush Jr up in Harken oil in the first place.
I've been telling you that Rothschild and his financial agent Soros own both sides of the power elite fence since day one.
|
|
| 1458 | PV On golf course
ID: 18621911 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:03
|
Which of those names in 1455 are current members of the fed? Anyone can throw out some names. You've shown nothing.
|
|
| 1459 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:06
|
Now now, PV: He's shown he can self-reference with the best of them. He's shown that it is more important to have attitude than factual expertise. He's shown he is willing to go six degrees of George Soros in a moment's notice, but blow off the one or two degrees which might show his "side" in a bad light.
He's shown that he's all about ethics and standing up for one you believe and uncompromising morality until they are politically inconvenient.
|
|
| 1460 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:53
|
Wow, forget researching the directors, just found out that the specific list of Fed shareholders are a secret and that arrangement set in placed by Rothschild's agents Kuhn and Loeb is set in stone, since it is against the law for those shares to be sold!
|
|
| 1461 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:57
|
While there is a section of the law that creates a limit of the amount of shares in a Federal Reserve district bank that a private individual or corporation may hold, no public stock has ever been issued. That section of the law was included in 1913 to ensure that enough capital was available for the district banks in case the national bank subscriptions were not sufficient. See 12 USC 283 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc…
|
|
| 1462 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:20
|
Ran across this:1. First of all, consider who are the top controllers of the FED as revealed through Standard and Poor sources;
Rothschild Bank of London Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Warburg Bank of Hamburg Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Lehman Brothers Banks of New York Kuhn, Leob Bank of New York Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Rockefeller) Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
As I amnot a subscriber to S&P I can't verify that. That list would confirm my position nicely.
|
|
| 1463 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 19:33
|
Here is the list of the Federal Reserve Banks and Branches.
Here are the members of the Board of Governors.
These are the two main bodies of the Fed which Boldwin claims is controlled by obvious Rothschild cronies. Two names are consistent with Boldwin's list in #1455. There is Tilmon F Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer New Horizons Baking Company Norwalk, Ohio.
There are two Morgans:
Richard J. Morgan President and Chief Executive Officer CommerceFirst Bank Annapolis, Maryland
and
Jenny G. Morgan President basys, inc. Linthicum, Maryland
Are these the Morgans and Browns suggested in #1455?
I also notice in the list(with no link) in #1462, that Lehman Brothers Banks of New York is included. Is that the same Lehman Brothers which hasn't existed for 3 years?
Where is the evidence that the Fed is controlled by obvious Rothschild cronies? Where is the evidence that the Fed is foreign owned. Your source in #1435 is 28 years old. It's irrelevant to your claims in 2011.
Let us know when you catch up.
|
|
| 1464 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 20:27
|
I also notice in the list(with no link) in #1462, that Lehman Brothers Banks of New York is included. Is that the same Lehman Brothers which hasn't existed for 3 years?
Oh, don't worry about that diminishing Rothschild's influence over the Fed. Gotta keep a tight grip on those permanent unsellable shares!
Not to worry tho. Lehmans was purchased by Barlays.
You know Barclays, which owns more industry leading companies than you can shake a stick at?
Barclays, led by MARCUS AGIUS, married to KATHERINE ROTHSCHILD.
|
|
| 1465 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 20:30
|
PV: Stop! You'll never get him to get over his addiction.
Sadly, many of the OWS protesters are saying the exact same thing. But God forbid Baldwin would ever find common cause with the dirty commies.
|
|
| 1466 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 20:57
|
Barclays, led by MARCUS AGIUS, married to KATHERINE ROTHSCHILD.
Nothing to do with the Fed, of course, but interesting that you view married people as cronies.
|
|
| 1467 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 21:31
|
When the American congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States, Jackson responded by using his veto to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight. "It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?...
Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" ----------- "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world." - Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany ----------- Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power." - Abraham Lincoln
From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy.
This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times..."If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." ----------- "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." - James Garfield 1881 Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated. ----------- On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.
it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation.
|
|
| 1469 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 21:38
|
Barclays, led by MARCUS AGIUS, married to KATHERINE ROTHSCHILD.
Nothing to do with the Fed, of course, but interesting that you view married people as cronies.
1) First you mock Lehman's being on the list, bankrupted so how can they represent Rothschild influence? Then you think it an insignificant coincidence that Lehman's Fed shares ended up in the hands of a Rothschild again.
2) Yes, being married to a Rothschild makes you a Rothschild crony.
|
|
| 1470 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 22:38
|
Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!"
Jackson's thoughts on the bank helped launch the Democratic party. good to know that you hold such actions in high esteem.
"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." - James Garfield 1881 Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated.
yea, he didn't say it. it's another quote you probably got from some right wing blog, that isn't accurate. what Garfield ACTUALLY said was "It would convert the Treasury of the United States into a manufactory of paper money. It makes the House of Representatives and the Senate, or the caucus of the party which happens to be in the majority, the absolute dictator of the financial and business affairs of this country. This scheme surpasses all the centralism and all the Caesarism that were ever charged upon the Republican party in the wildest days of the war or in the events growing out of the war. "
he made that comment in regards to a member of the Greenback party suggesting the government should issue all money. (source )
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.
another mis-step on your part, as explained here.
it's easy to do the research to see a lot of what you post is wrong, or being mis-interpreted. either you're unwilling, lazy, or just don't care, but simply put, many of your posts are easily proved wrong, and many of your quotations are shown to be imaginary.
|
|
| |
| 1472 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:08
|
This is a silver note:

It says 'silver certificate' on it, not 'federal reserve note'.
The government printed it and was not charged interest on it by the Fed as with federal reserve notes.
Kennedy brought $4.3 billion worth of these into circulation and the country did not add that to the national debt as with the creation of Fed Notes.
E.O. 11110 reads: "The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions...to issue silver certificates...
Thus the catty reference in the wiki entry namely...'None of the powers assigned to the Treasury in E.O. 10289 relate to money or to monetary policy.'...is misleading because obviously as I just showed, Kennedy's E.O. 11110 amending E.O.10289 did exactly that, authorize the Treasurer to perform an end run around the Fed and print money directly without Fed involvement.
Further when the wiki entry says 'E.O. 11110 was not reversed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and the section added to E.O. 10289 remained on the books until President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12608 on September 9, 1987 as part of a general clean-up of executive orders.'...
...that is misleading because no one believing the Fed was involved has charged that. They say that the notes ceased being printed by the treasury as soon as Kennedy was assassinated. They do not claim the order was rescinded then and in fact they chide later presidents for not taking advantage of that E.O. still on the books.
|
|
| 1473 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:11
|
The Treasury has always had the power to print the currency in the United States.
|
|
| 1474 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:25
|
As for the Garfield quote, 'The Center For Progressive Economics' has that quote up on their site. As does the Occupy Wall st. site..
So it is hardly some right wing conspiracy thing. Over a hundred thousand other sites quote that so it's been widely believed historically and probably came into circulation from some commentary at the time of Garfield's inauguration speech that got attributed to him.
|
|
| 1475 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:27
|
The Treasury has always had the power to print the currency in the United States.
And from day one of the republic international bankers have conspired to keep that from happening.
BTW if you are going to make that assertion, link to the Code where it actually states that.
|
|
| 1476 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:31
|
of course, the fact that by the early 1960s, the value of silver was rising, and people were exchanging silver certificates for silver coins, which were in turn melted down and worth more than $1, has nothing to do with why silver certificates were taken out of circulation.
|
|
| 1477 | Razor
ID: 33520166 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:57
|
This is awesome. I love how a Kennedy assassination myth proves that foreigners control the Fed.
|
|
| 1478 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 12:04
|
Don't forget: It's all Obama's fault-. Damn Third Central Bank!
|
|
| 1479 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 12:37
|
I'm the one who said it was the one anchor on Cain.
|
|
| 1480 | sarge33rd
ID: 17921415 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 16:02
|
<--still waiting for B to blame this one on the Clintons
|
|
| |
| 1482 | sarge33rd
ID: 339382016 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 00:07
|
Yep, he is the latest target of the birthers.
|
|
| 1483 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 04:18
|
Birthers don't 'have it in' for Rubio. They like him. They are just trying to be consistent. If it's wrong for Obama, and it is, it's wrong if republicans do it to. Even Rubio understands that I am sure.
|
|
| 1484 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 09:57
|
I have no idea where the idea of "birthers" come into the discussion of Rubio. Birthers have never been interested in investigating the birth origins of any GOP member. And in any case, no one has asserted that Rubio wasn't born in this country, which is kinda the point behind the birthers and Obama, isn't it?
|
|
| 1485 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 10:54
|
No real smoking gun?
This might be a case of Rubio leading people to believe something without actually saying it. Given the political climate of the South Florida Cuban population (wackos, every one) this is no surprise to me.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1488 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 17:18
|
...thus echoing every women's magazine cover for the last 50 years.
|
|
| 1489 | Tree
ID: 159122122 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 23:14
|
Last time I checked, those magazine covers were not running for public office, and certainly not as part of the party that claims to be the family values party.
No shock you're not condemning a member of the GOP....
|
|
| 1490 | sarge33rd
ID: 359122312 Sun, Oct 23, 2011, 14:34
|
link
with apologies, I'm not upto speed with HTML and cant post the source code for the above poli cartoon.
|
|
| 1491 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Oct 23, 2011, 18:33
|
Presenting the Boldwin Tax Plan:
Tax the crap outta liberals.
Hey, they want to see higher taxes anyway. They are eager to pay taxes. They'll even chant 'raise my taxes' at political rallies.
Fire IRS enforcement. Since liberals actually want to pay taxes, why do we still need enforcement? Fire them outmoded triple-nasty blue meanies.
Double-tax rich liberals. They actually feel guilty keeping that filthy lucre. If you let them keep any, they'll just donate it to Democrats anyway.
Triple-tax rich hollywood liberals. They are slightly over-payed just to be themselves. Ya'think? If they propose spending programs, let them pay for them entirely. They can afford it.
|
|
| 1492 | sarge33rd
ID: 359122312 Sun, Oct 23, 2011, 18:50
|
^ not much used to thinking, are ya?
|
|
| 1493 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Oct 23, 2011, 19:32
|
how much did you pay in taxes last year Baldwin?
|
|
| 1494 | sarge33rd
ID: 359122312 Sun, Oct 23, 2011, 20:09
|
B doesnt participate ion our society. He doesnt vote, he doesnt serve, he doesnt pay taxes..just complains.
|
|
| 1495 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 02:12
|
Hey, wait wait, I'm just getting started.
As long as we're going to an all voluntary tax, let's just cede the presidency to the Democrats permanently. Let'em have all the big government they're willing to pay for!!!
But I know what you're thinking, will we really have national security with a democrat in the WH fulltime?
Yes, so long as we also move to an all robot army!!! Forget an all volunteer army, let's get an all volunteer robot army.
As PD and others have pointed out, Obama is a real cowboy as long as it's only robot drones at risk. I've lost count of just how many wars Obama is juggling. It was never the 'killing people' part they hated about war after all. When was the last time you heard the word quagmire?
No more bitching and moaning about quagmires. It will be like the rise of the Daleks.
Wait wait. Just hire homosexual robots. No more bitching and moaning about DADT either.
Make Occupy Wallstreet permanent. Let'em move in forever so long as they share tents with the homeless. No more bitching and moaning about the homeless.
It will be a good reminder to all those rich liberals in Wallstreet to keep up their record donations to the cause of big government.
And I like drumming.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1498 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 11:27
|
sometimes, watching someone slide off the deep end isn't really much fun. :o/
|
|
| 1499 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 14:39
|
Agreed.
And apparently the only wars the GOP like are the ones they declare, that take a lot of time and blood, and do not achieve objectives.
You would think they would at least admire the efficiency with which Obama has conducted it all. If they weren't too busy working themselves up into a self-sustaining froth about Obama, anyway.
|
|
| 1500 | sarge33rd
ID: 309182411 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 15:17
|
There is crazy, and then there is bat-sh*t inasane:
Buchanans new book
Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans.
I mean really Pat...WTF?
|
|
| 1501 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 15:21
|
How efficiently he converts stable governments into islamist/al qeada outposts that create nothing but trouble for us ever after? Yeah, I'm speechless with admiration. Jimmy Carter is taking notes in case he ever wants another term.
|
|
| 1502 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 15:23
|
Sarge
You remember. Back when families stayed together. Fathers supported their families and kids grew up healthy.
|
|
| 1503 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 15:33
|
And racism was fine.
|
|
| 1504 | sarge33rd
ID: 309182411 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 15:34
|
and that was due to segregation and blatant racism? Are you SERIOUSLY implying that divorce is the black mans fault?
|
|
| 1505 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 16:06
|
Where did I say anything like that?
No, I am saying all your help has in most cases done them more harm than good. I'm not saying go back to segregated lunch counters, but more humility and less backslapping self-congratulations is in order.
|
|
| 1506 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 16:27
|
but more humility and less backslapping self-congratulations is in order.
[holds up mirror for Baldy to look in]
|
|
| 1507 | sarge33rd
ID: 309182411 Mon, Oct 24, 2011, 16:37
|
beat me to that one Farn
|
|
| 1508 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:19
|
Amazingly I am still sensing reservations about my plan to keep democrats in the WH permanently as long as we just tax liberals. #1491, #1495
I know what you are thinking.
"But Dave, where are we gonna get our hands on some gay homosexual robots?"
I am way ahead of you.
Contact Bjork for all your gay homosexual robotic needs.
Solar powered.
zero carbon emissions
Laser firing
Zero lead emissions
Zero depleted uranium emissions
Union made in America...we fight hard, but who's complaining
Liberal utopia...it's all there.
|
|
| 1509 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:23
|
All that and tender moments all curled up and stowed in the robot troop carrier...awww.
|
|
| 1510 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:25
|
I would be all for only taxing "liberals," whoever they are, so long as "conservatives" get none of the benefits of taxation.
|
|
| 1511 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:33
|
We can surely come to an amicable separation.
We'll take all the roads and you all can ride all the bullet trains and public transportation you can bear.
|
|
| 1512 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:36
|
Let the Red States maintain the roads. We can work out the details.
|
|
| 1513 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:37
|
Yes, great idea Boldwin. Because obviously roads were only built with "conservatives" money.
|
|
| 1514 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:40
|
Ok ok, you can use the roads too. But why would you want to when you could share rides and the community experience of public transportation instead?
|
|
| 1515 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:42
|
I'm willing to give up all the non-union roads, airports, buildings, and train systems.
Meanwhile, the reason Perry was so coy about his spending and tax plan was that, apparently, he really couldn't come up with one.
Rick Perry: "I wanted to simplify the tax code, so I kept the old one and added on an "optional" one.
|
|
| 1516 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:45
|
Ok ok, you can use the roads too.
I remember when Boldwin said this in post #1505:
but more humility
I'm still holding up that mirror if you ever want to use it.
|
|
| 1517 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 11:46
|
More Perry: Birtherism is fun!
Words fail...
|
|
| 1518 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 12:12
|
Of all the ridiculous stories, that one takes the cake.
Perry was not pushing the issue, that reporter was pushing it down Perry's throat, that's who the birther is, that reporter.
If you don't want to know what non-obama worshipers think about Obama and his eligibility, don't ask. If they want you to know what they really think, they'll tell you.
And Trump is still spot-on.
|
|
| 1519 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 12:15
|
Nobody said Perry was "pushing the issue." As usual, you completely miss the point.
In this case, the point being that Perry finds a lie about the president "fun."
The coming Democratic wave in 2012 is going to catch you completely by surprise.
|
|
| 1520 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 12:31
|
I'll cherish that last post.
|
|
| 1521 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 14:44
|
I'll cherish that last post.
oh, and those of us who think on our own will cherish THAT post. your reaction after the elections is going to be hysterical. or scary. depends if we get crazy baldwin, or crazy angry baldwin.
|
|
| 1522 | Razor
ID: 55982514 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 15:09
|
I'm curious what stake Boldwin has in PD being wrong.
|
|
| 1523 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 16:51
|
I just think it's hysterical that PD thinks we are on the cusp of a democratic sweeping wave election.
I'll grant you that if Obama has any skill or genius it is in building, guiding and using mobs. So he surely has some counter-intuitive uses for a mob that is veeery displeased with the results of the Obama administration.
Thus he might squeak out a win or he might just refuse to leave office and allow an election.
Or the biased MSM might succeed in damaging the republican candidate.
Or the conservatives and republicans might even split and let Obama win by default.
But one thing is for sure. Obama is not on the cusp of wild popularity.
|
|
| 1524 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 17:03
|
Good to see Boldwin is getting started on his conspiracy theories and excuses a year in advance.
God forbid he actually put any blame on his fellow crazies conservatives and their poorly run campaigns/ideas.
|
|
| 1525 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 17:03
|
or people might get sick of Conservatives saying, and doing, stupid things.
|
|
| 1526 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 17:21
|
he might just refuse to leave office and allow an election.
This is the same person who wrote today:
you've never met anyone in your life less afraid to engage with the marketplace of ideas than I am.
I don't think I've ever met anyone less willing to engage in the marketplace of ideas. Your default position is to display an alarming persecution complex. That's not engaging. In order to engage in the marketplace of ideas, one must be able to listen and absorb in a non-defensive posture that allows for measured analysis. It may be that I've never met anyone who is less afraid to engage in combative rhetoric and stoic obstinance, but any marketplace of ideas sprouting from that is an unintentional by-product of basic communication.
|
|
| 1527 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 18:35
|
There have been some interesting trial balloons sent up at regular intervals about how great it would be if Obama didn't have to face a re-election campaign. Several years ago I wouldn't have let that go without a thread discussing it.
Strange times when the governor of a large state suggests suspending elections for 2012. I am sure she didn't just spout something off the top of her head. Someone is talking about this sort of thing in private.
Such as Obama insiders like Peter Orzag, article in the New Republic entitled 'Why We Need Less Democracy'To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic. To be fair:And it's not necessarily limited to democrats.
And the internet facilitates discussions that wouldn't otherwise come up. This idea was discussed in one form or another concerning the last two presidents as well. But then they weren't Marxist revolutionaries.
|
|
| 1528 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 18:43
|
At the very least she ran across that idea, or read that article and thot to herself, 'That is the only possible way I am still in this seat in 2013. I should run this idea up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes."
|
|
| 1529 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 21:37
|
I just think it's hysterical that PD thinks we are on the cusp of a democratic sweeping wave election.
Hey, just be prepared. Who, exactly, will the GOP put up that will challenge Obama? Obama hasn't even started his campaign yet, the GOP has been at it for months, and the best they can do is a statistical tie. Nice.
Democrats are pulling in gobs of cash, the OWS movement is, indeed, moving people into thinking about the economic in more clear-eyed terms, and frankly the Tea Party is polling like they are going to implode any day.
All the signs are there. If you don't want to see it that is fine, Boldwin--I genuinely don't care. But if I were you I'd be double checking for spelling errors on your post-election posts about how you didn't like [insert GOP candidates names here] anyway because of some tenuous Soros connection.
|
|
| 1530 | blackjackis21
ID: 579522520 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 21:54
|
I just can't refrain from pointing out posts 5 and 6 in this thread.
|
|
| 1531 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 22:37
|
RE 1529:
Obama hasn't even started his campaign yet...
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 -- Wiki
...
On April 4, 2011, President Obama officially announced his candidacy for re-election. If re-elected, it would be his second and final term. The announcement was made via an online video titled "It Begins With Us", posted on his campaign website. The President also filled out official forms with the FEC on April 4.
...
The campaign began accepting online donations on April 4, 2011, the day Obama announced his candidacy. In the first 24 hours after online donations began to be accepted, over 23,000 online donations of $200 or less were made. President Obama headlined his first campaign fundraiser in April 2011 in Chicago. He also headlined fundraisers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York in April 2011.
...
Obama courts Hispanic vote on fundraising tour of the west -- The Guardian -- Tuesday 25 October 2011 17.39 EDT
Barack Obama is using a three-day visit to the West to raise funds for the 2012 White House race and to shore up the Latino vote that could prove pivotal to his re-election chances.
Obama won 67% of the Latino vote in the 2008 election campaign. But a Gallup poll this summer showed support among Latinos, upset over the failure of the president to reform immigration laws and hit disproportionately hard by unemployment, had dropped to 48%.
Over the last few months, he has made a belated effort to court Latinos, from inviting Hispanic journalists to the White House for a round-table to high-profile speeches at gatherings.
On Monday night, he attended a fund-raising party in Los Angeles co-hosted by actors Antonio Banderas and Eva Longoria. It was attended by about 120 donors from the Latino community, each paying at least $5,000 to attend.
...
Obama Bets 2012 on Factory Jobs -- thedailybeast.com -- Eleanor Clift -- Jul 1, 2011 2:59 PM EDT
The president is barnstorming factories in swing states, banking on a return of jobs in time for the election. Eleanor Clift says the strategy could pay big dividends—if he’s right.
President Obama is betting that made-in-America manufacturing is poised for a comeback, and that a little-noticed renaissance in the industrial heartland will bump up jobs numbers next year and bolster his chances for reelection.
That’s why the president is pleading for patience and spending so much time recently visiting factories—particularly those involved high-tech green manufacturing—in states that he carried in 2008 but have been put back into the tossup column this election by high unemployment.
...
Obama's travels favor 2012 'swing' states -- USAToday -- Richard Wolf -- Updated 7/28/2011 6:36 PM
When President Obama travels on business, politics isn't far behind.
In the 2½ years he has been president, Obama has traveled to 40 states. Not counting Virginia and Maryland because of their proximity to the White House, half of his visits have been to the 13 "swing" states that likely will decide the 2012 presidential race. Only 16% have been to safe Republican states.
When it comes to policy events that focused on the economy, twice as many visits have been to swing states. Outside of the Washington metropolitan area, Ohio is the clear leader, with the industrial Midwest getting heavy attention.
"Travel these days largely is to 'purple' states. It's the reality of presidential competition," says Ari Fleischer, who was President George W. Bush's first press secretary. "I don't fault the president for visiting states that will make the most difference" in his bid for re-election.
A USA TODAY review of Obama's public events clearly shows that he favors battleground states the most, with Democratic states most useful for fundraising and Republican states seldom visited:
...
|
|
| 1532 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 23:02
|
Actually, Obama and all 1st term presidents are in continual campaign mode. Because of that, they rarely are willing to make tough and possibly unpopular decisions that might affect their electability. We should elect the president to one 6 year term. Then they could spend their entire term being president instead of campaigning.
|
|
| 1533 | sarge33rd
ID: 299342518 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 23:12
|
re 1532...precisely my proposal in my college poli-sci paper.
Pres elect, spends the 1st yr of the 1st term "learning" the job. OJT essentially. 2nd and 3rd yr they do the job. 4th yr, they run for re-election. Singular 6 yr term, removes most all of the impediments to BEING the President FOR their term.
|
|
| 1534 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 23:54
|
great minds, sarge
|
|
| 1535 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Wed, Oct 26, 2011, 00:25
|
Obama has spent nearly every moment of this first term trying to compromise with the GOP on every single issue. This is hardly the actions of someone running for re-election.
|
|
| 1536 | sarge33rd
ID: 299342518 Wed, Oct 26, 2011, 00:34
|
No, and he didnt really get the 1st yr as OJT either. the nation didnt have time for him to learn" the job. Talk about having been thrust front and center. In all honesty though PD, even as he is governing, he too has been campaigning for the last several months.
|
|
| 1537 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Wed, Oct 26, 2011, 06:09
|
RE 1535:
Obama has spent nearly every moment of this first term trying to compromise with the GOP on every single issue.
0-97 Unanimous rejection -- By POLITICO STAFF 05/26/11 5:22 AM Updated: 05/26/11 12:13 PM
The budget proposal released by the White House back in February didn’t win a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday— the final tally was 0-97. Senate Republicans pushed for the vote as a counterpoint to the defeat of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
POLITICO’s David Rogers reports: “The vote on the president’s plan turned into a rout, with neither Republicans nor Democrats voting in favor of taking it up. At one level, the 97-0 vote showed how out-of-date the February requests can seem after so much has changed in the spending debate already this year. But for Democrats, it also proved a convenient way to mask their substantial internal differences over how to proceed” on addressing the government’s fiscal problems.
-------------------------------------------------
Evidently, Obama couldn't compromise with Senate Republicans AND Senate Democrats on his February budget proposal. ;)
|
|
| 1538 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Wed, Oct 26, 2011, 08:55
|
Good point Wilmer, but a budget is exactly the place where compromises are made. Surely you aren't going to make the point that the final federal budget was not a compromise between Obama and the GOP, even if the original (pre-compromised) proposal was DOA?
If fact, your point actually shows the opposite of what you think it does, i.e., that Obama spends time compromising with the GOP in order to pass legislation. Saying he doesn't spend time compromising because his original offers doesn't get you to your point.
|
|
| |
| 1540 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Wed, Oct 26, 2011, 14:15
|
One of the most encouraging court decisions I've heard this year. And from the People's Republic of Mass., no less.
|
|
| 1541 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 11:36
|
Agreed. Police overreach is one of the worst legacies we have from the Bush Administration. Time to bring it back to where it belongs.
Meanwhile, looks like the Rev Terry Jones is running for President. Why not? Anytime someone like Cain (who really is just on a short term book tour) leads in some GOP polls this race is still wide open.
|
|
| 1542 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 12:06
|
I'll also cherish that one. Just a book tour, eh? Heh.
|
|
| 1543 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 12:18
|
Just a book tour, eh? Heh.
For the sake of a good election and the Republican party in general I hope it just ends as a book tour.
|
|
| 1544 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 12:31
|
The money is far too good for a book tour (see Palin, Former Politician for more).
|
|
| 1545 | sarge33rd
ID: 2992712 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 13:09
|
oh goody. Another moron running for the GOP nominee...*yawn*
|
|
| 1546 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 13:51
|
If the smart money is on a Romney nomination, it also has to be on Cain for a running mate selection, at least for the time being.
|
|
| 1547 | sarge33rd
ID: 2992712 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 13:53
|
I can see that MITH. Given their current field, that would most likely be their strongest ticket. Strong enough? I dont believe so.
|
|
| 1548 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 14:06
|
Can you imagine the Biden v Cain VP debate? That'll be fun.
|
|
| 1549 | sarge33rd
ID: 2992712 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 14:17
|
Indeed it would be. Biden would destroy Cain, in a fashion not unlike JFK's thorough thrashing of Nixon. An event, more than a few credit with JFKs winning that election.
|
|
| 1550 | Razor
ID: 55982514 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 14:17
|
If the smart money is on a Romney nomination, it also has to be on Cain for a running mate selection, at least for the time being.
100% agree. Cain brings enthusiasm and charisma, which is great for a VP role. That his ideas are poor matters not because they won't be his any more, they will be Romney's. He is a know-nothing just like Palin was, but he is far less polarizing. Biden and Quayle proved that you can stick your foot in your mouth repeatedly as VP and no one really cares.
|
|
| 1551 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 14:29
|
I give him much higher grades than Palin, which admittedly says more about Palin than it does Cain.
|
|
| 1552 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 18:06
|
If the smart money is on a Romney nomination, it also has to be on Cain for a running mate selection
That would be the RINO establishment dream ticket. Co-opt the Tea Party without giving them a thing.
Except giving the conservative base nothing guarantees another diminished turnout republican loss. Which the RINO's don't seem to mind.
|
|
| 1553 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 18:29
|
Did you ever really think anyone other than an establishment Republican would be nominated? Seriously?
|
|
| 1554 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Thu, Oct 27, 2011, 18:30
|
American Experience -- The Presidents -- JFK -- (pbs.org)
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican rival Richard M. Nixon met on September 26, 1960 in a debate that changed the course of American politics. Vice President Nixon defended the Eisenhower administration against charges that its domestic programs had failed. Kennedy denied Nixon's assertions that he lacked the necessary experience. But it was not the content of the debate that made it a political milestone. It was the medium by which most Americans experienced the debate -- television.
Before the debate began, public opinion polls showed a close race between the two men. But the television cameras changed that. An estimated 75 million viewers, at the time the largest television audience ever, saw a contrast between Nixon and Kennedy that had nothing to do with political positions. Nixon, who was recovering from a recent illness, appeared haggard and pale. He wore a five o'clock shadow and perspired profusely. His makeup ran under the hot studio lights. Kennedy looked fit, relaxed and handsome. He exuded confidence and poise.
The power of these televised images revealed itself in post-debate polls. Many radio listeners gave the edge to Nixon. Television viewers, however, overwhelmingly agreed that Kennedy had won. By their next debate, Nixon had solved his appearance problems, but the damage was done. Kennedy had strengthened his bond to a medium which would significantly influence the course of his presidency.
...
|
|
| 1555 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 28, 2011, 09:52
|
Mitt's flopping again, in Ohio this time.
Normally I'm very generous when it comes to allowing a politician to change his mind (I'm not interested in a calcified process whereby no one can change positions). But Mitt is just off the wall on this one.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1558 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Oct 30, 2011, 14:38
|
post 1556 is funny. for the Tea Party folks, Cain gets the bump, as Bachmann and Perry fall all over each other saying and doing dumb things.
meanwhile, Romney stays relatively consistent.
|
|
| 1559 | sarge33rd
ID: 319333012 Sun, Oct 30, 2011, 15:51
|
Romney, consistently inconsistent...and yet, he is the GOPs best hope.
|
|
| 1560 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Oct 30, 2011, 16:06
|
Cain had already been given a good look thanks to a good month or so of very heavy and highly favorable coverage on FNC back in the late spring.
He didn't stick, as his numbers fell quickly into the single digits. But he eventually rose again after Perry and Bachmann were both given a chance and stumbled. Switching back to the guy the rightist media was pushing heavily only to be rejected by the TP after other options were explored and also rejected doesn't say much for their excitement about him.
Another negative indicator for Cain is that just at the time in the spring that FNC and most of the righty blogs and radio hosts were all fawning over him, Romney shot up among Tea Partiers to levels that Bachmann never achieved among Tea Partiers. Romney shot right back down as Cain failed to go anywhere.
Too bad Palin and Ron Paul weren't included in these graphs.
|
|
| 1561 | Perm Dude
ID: 549411117 Sun, Oct 30, 2011, 17:26
|
The Tea Party isn't gravitating toward a single consistent candidate because all of theirs suck.
The Tea Party has a number of fatal flaws, and this one (making decisions in anger) is just dragging it out for themselves.
|
|
| 1562 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Oct 30, 2011, 17:42
|
If you could combine Palin/Bachmann/Cain you would have an easy TP choice. Right now they are just weighing charisma/grasp of the issues/electability/fundraising prowess/gaffes/debating skills/appeal to independents/etc...
...and they don't neatly single out just one candidate.
What they are sure of is that winning the presidency only to lose it to Mitt Romney's unpalatable instincts would be a pyric victory at best.
|
|
| 1563 | Perm Dude
ID: 549411117 Sun, Oct 30, 2011, 17:48
|
I guess finding out that the real world of politics and choosing candidates is a lot harder than on internet comment fields is a developmental milestone for the Tea Party.
Welcome to the big wide world. Where you can't combine candidates, and electability and compromise are two dirty words often used when trying to move an agenda forward.
|
|
| |
| 1565 | sarge33rd
ID: 17109112 Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 21:18
|
Guess we need top all drive to KY and read the FIRST AMENDMENT to Mr Williams.
|
|
| 1566 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 21:27
|
Apparently is is only American if it is Christian ceremonies.
Deep in the polls politicians will say anything.
|
|
| 1567 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Nov 03, 2011, 13:02
|
If you could combine Palin/Bachmann/Cain you would have an easy TP choice.
and now, we have that person.
|
|
| |
| 1569 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Fri, Nov 04, 2011, 13:33
|
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
(Michigan GOP corollary: Unless, of course, my religion says it's OK to punch you in the face.)
|
|
| 1570 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Nov 04, 2011, 13:46
|
Apparently voting to defund Planned Parenthood and voting against gay marriage is more "pro-family" than paying child support. Who knew?
|
|
| |
| 1572 | sarge33rd
ID: 241054714 Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 15:54
|
Tea Party Ted
|
|
| 1573 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 11:00
|
It isn't worth starting a "The Real Newt" thread since this will be short-termed, but Gingrich moves up in new CBS poll.
|
|
| 1574 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 11:08
|
What PD would like you to overlook is that despite a national effort and +$20Mil to get out every public sector employee in Ohio to the polls...
...Obamacare was rejected by those voters 66-34.
|
|
| 1575 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 11:09
|
Tho I don't see what those SEIU voters are worried about. They'll just get the Pelosi waiver anyway, of course.
|
|
| 1576 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 11:29
|
I said nothing about that--you really need to have more confidence in your political positions so as not to be forced to put words into other people's mouths.
|
|
| 1577 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 15:36
|
Yeah, I noticed when you delivered the Ohio election results you very pointedly didn't mention the Obamacare crash and burn part.
|
|
| 1578 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 16:23
|
Hey, you want to talk about that (preferably in the right thread) I'm happy to do so. Ohio amended its constitution to try to circumvent the individual mandate portion of the health care law, a vote which will be rendered moot the moment SCOTUS rules on that very issue.
So the vote in Ohio, actually, doesn't carry any real weight. Either SCOTUS will rule that the mandate is unconstitutional (making Ohio's vote needless) or they will rule that it is constitutional (overturning Ohio's law).
Any a partisan hack will think that the vote has any real meaning, in light of SCOTUS taking up the case.
Meanwhile, no word from you on the rejection of a new definition of "personhood" in Mississippi?
|
|
| 1579 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 16:34
|
Satan wins in Mississipi.
|
|
| 1580 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 16:35
|
I have it on good authority too.
|
|
| 1581 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 16:44
|
#1579: The Mississippi law was written so poorly, even the Catholic Church was against it.
Yeah, I read that idiot's quote when he made it.
|
|
| 1582 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 16:47
|
Yeah you can always find a Jesuit somewhere who will say anything.
|
|
| 1583 | sarge33rd
ID: 5810351111 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 19:47
|
witness how many absurd/ridiculous statements made by the guy who posted 1582.
|
|
| 1584 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 20:42
|
Satan wins in Mississipi.
i thought he retired. or, rather, the Bruins didn't renew his contract...
|
|
| 1585 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 22:57
|
Yeah you can always find a Jesuit somewhere who will say anything.
You probably want to steer away from slams against Catholics. You know, given your religion and your aversion to facts and all.
|
|
| 1586 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Nov 11, 2011, 23:24
|
although there is a lot in common with the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses...not to mention the Penn State football program.
|
|
| 1587 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 10:17
|
Friday's McClatchy poll
The breakdown of the poll:
— Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, 23 percent;
— Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, 19 percent;
— Cain, the former restaurant executive, 17 percent;
— Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 10 percent;
— Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, 8 percent;
— Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, 5 percent;
— Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, 1 percent;
— Former Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, 1 percent;
- Undecided, 17 percent
link
Nice surge for Newt. Looks like he's the recipient of Cain and Perry drops and the latest darling of the anybody but Romney contingency. It's bad news for the influence of the so-called Tea Party. I've never heard Newt regarded as a Tea party candidate. The initial Tea Party candidate, Michele Bachmann(leader of the House Tea Party caucus)is floundering at 5% and there's no indication that will change much. Cain surged, but his support is soft, and his Tea Party credentials, given his former position with the Fed, have always been questionable.
The bad news for Romney is that he's not picking up much support from the dropping candidates. They're just finding a new flavor-of-the-month. But Romney has the organization and the saavy to count the delegates, so he doesn't need to win every primary. Romney has to be concerned where the Cain, Perry, Bachmann and Paul supporters go, but it's doubtful they'll all end up supporting Newt.
The good news for the GOP is that if it turns out to be a Romney/Gingrich race, the tone of the campaign focuses on issues instead of personalities. The bad news for Newt is that he's weak among independents and moderates, and comparisons of Romney/Obama and Gingrich/Obama will favor Romney by a large margin. That should tilt the scales.
|
|
| 1588 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 12:38
|
Compared to every aging politician who ever ran because he thot it was his turn and the party owed it to him...McCain and Bob Dole being prime examples...
Conservatives actually do owe a ton to Newt and it would be fitting if he was the nominee. Not perfectly conservative [been in Washington way too long for that] but his skill at working congress would make him as formidable as LBJ at actually delivering legislation for conservatives. He'd be his own whip in both chambers.
I'd still rather see West/Bachmann/Cain in that order but Newt would be the pill conservatives could swallow and he just might be the best choice pragmatically.
|
|
| 1589 | sarge33rd
ID: 3810531212 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 13:53
|
and like the other 3 you name, totally unelectable as the lead on the ticket.
|
|
| 1590 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 14:00
|
Yeah, in the middle of a double-dip depression with OWS unwashed hanging around his neck stinking from a year of rape and murder and tuberculous and cholera and nasty nasty relations with the McDonalds server and the street vendor neighbors...what a sight...Obama will really look like a savior compared to Newt.
|
|
| 1591 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 14:49
|
Keep those fingers crossed. And Conservative Insult Thesaurus close by.
|
|
| 1592 | sarge33rd
ID: 1110131214 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 15:13
|
see post 59 here:
The Real Newt Gingrich
then, the link in sub=post 2, courtesy of DW...
finally, explain to me how someone SO utterly arrogant as to actually AY 'dont do as I do,m do as I fkn tell you to' ...
Newt when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on family values: "It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
is a viable candidate for anything other than ass of the year?
|
|
| 1593 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 15:46
|
Cain vs Gingerich one-on-one not limited to soundbites all meat.
|
|
| 1594 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 15:54
|
Yeah, in the middle of a double-dip depression with OWS unwashed hanging around his neck stinking from a year of rape and murder and tuberculous and cholera and nasty nasty relations with the McDonalds server and the street vendor neighbors...what a sight...Obama will really look like a savior compared to Newt.
you really do say some might dumb things. it's hard to believe that at one point, you had credibility in this forum. instead, you've become the albatross of those here who do lean to the right.
|
|
| 1595 | sarge33rd
ID: 1110131214 Sat, Nov 12, 2011, 17:37
|
re 1593....I appreciate the oppty to listen but have no intention of spending 90 minutes, listening to two people with whom I vehemently disagree, mutually ignore truth while dissing the disenfranchised via "entitlement" reform. The GOP wants t9o reform entitlements, so that more govt money can go to corporate and wealthy America via tax breaks. We all know that already.
|
|
| 1596 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 10:59
|
After watching most of last night's debate(Stanford/Oregon just wasn't very compelling), and about a half hour of the debate in #1593, I can only conclude that anyone who prefers Cain over Gingrich merely prefers style over substance.
Cain sounds more like the typical politician, speaking in platitudes and generalities, while Gingrich gets down to the nuts and bolts and specifics, which allows for positive discussion concerning proposed legislation as opposed to ideological musings. The Cain/Gingrich debate clealy shows Cain isn't in the same league with Newt as far as effectively communicating the possibilities that exist in the real world of politics, which is that one side must take into the considerations of the other side in order to craft policies that are feasable for Americans from all walks of life; all income levels and all political persuasions, at least as much as possible. There's no more glaring example of this than when Gingrich sides with Obama and Ezekial Emmanuel in chiding those who scream "death panels" about end of life consultations designed to realistically approach the subject of billions of Medicare dollars being spent on surgeries and expensive procedures to prolong life in a hospital bed for a few weeks.
I suppose that's what Boldwin means when he says Gingrich isn't "perfectly conservative"(as if he is the only person qualified to make that determination), yet, in the next breath, admits that he has the politcal saavy to get productive legislation passed.
I haven't really thought much about Gingrich in over a decade. As I become more and more disillusioned with Romney's pandering to the GOP's far right, and realizing Hunstman and Paul don't have any chance, Gingrich actually looks like he might be the best of the bunch. Unfortunately for Newt, his personality isn't that likeable, he has a history of personal baggage(important to many GOP faithful, not me - I'm not GOP faithful) and he's not a fresh, exciting face, which propelled Obama in '08.
As an independent, I'm interested in competence and a balance of pragmatism and progressive foresight, the word "progressive" meaning the actual definition, not the political one.
|
|
| 1597 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 13:23
|
PV
I can accept Gingrich as the best choice among the front runners (or maybe among all of them except Huntsman) mostly because he leaves no question about his grasp of the issues and seems less committed to the tea party's prerequisite of blind political obstruction than any of their preferred candidates.
But while he might not pander on the level of Romney and the most of the TP candidates, he's still pulled too many politically expedient u-turns to not make it part of the equation.
|
|
| 1598 | Boldwin
ID: 1510511410 Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 19:11
|
PV
If you think Alvin Toffler has foresight and good ideas you'll love Gingerich. I'm not sold on that myself of course.
|
|
| 1599 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 19:20
|
Santorum supports unions! [in Iran only]
Maybe he's right--when President Santorum begins his theocracy, it will be unions standing in the way.
|
|
| |
| 1601 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 15:11
|
I was not aware there was any difference between halal and kosher. Give it both labels and why complain. Just halal and I think she has a point suddenly.
|
|
| 1602 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 15:29
|
They are virtually the same. And there should be no problem is it just says halal.
|
|
| 1603 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 16:16
|
Yeah, see if the muslims except that deal with kosher only.
|
|
| 1604 | sarge33rd
ID: 3010102311 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 16:18
|
For a nation whose original settlers were fleeing religious persecution; who then persecuted each other and hung one another over RELIGIOUS objections, and who Bill of Rights STARTS with Freedom of Religion....there seems to be a rather large segment of the population who believes that religious freedom extends ONLY to themselves.
Your God is watching you violate the principles He teaches.
|
|
| 1605 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 16:46
|
there seems to be a rather large segment of the population who believes that religious freedom extends ONLY to themselves
Yeah, we call them Muslims.
|
|
| 1606 | sarge33rd
ID: 3010102311 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 16:47
|
look in the mirror B, and the reread virtually any post you have made in recent memory, dealing with religion.
|
|
| 1607 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 16:50
|
Seriously, Muslims would be offended if kosher got slapped on halal turkeys and somehow this reflects on me. How's that go?
|
|
| 1608 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 17:13
|
I was not aware there was any difference between halal and kosher. Give it both labels and why complain.
oy. well you can't just "give" it both labels. there is a certification process, and in fact, an entire process nearly from birth of the animal to its death to its delivery to the store that takes place.
i can't speak on Halal, but i can on Kashrut. it is expensive, it is sometimes a scam (the person certified to deem something kosher turns out not to be certified), and it is a wieldy process.
They are virtually the same. And there should be no problem is it just says halal.
Yeah, see if the muslims except that deal with kosher only.
i think PD is saying there should be no problem with a turkey saying halal. there should be no criticism for that.
fact of the matter is, unless you live in a moderately heavy jewish populated area, you're not likely to find a kosher turkey in your regular grocery store. your butcher can probably get one for you, but if you're in rural iowa (or fort worth, texas), a kosher turkey is hard to come by.
there seems to be a rather large segment of the population who believes that religious freedom extends ONLY to themselves
Yeah, we call them Muslims.
no, YOU (and assorted bigots) CALL THEM MUSLIMS. I've never had a Muslim tell me my religion was wrong. but i've had numerous "Christians" (including you) harass me for my religion, and tell me it's wrong. not to mention the whole blood libel and christ killer thing.
Muslims would be offended if kosher got slapped on halal turkeys
no one suggested that. in fact, the differences between Halal and Kashrut are just enough that i think it would be difficult for something to be certified as both.
i realize research is tough for some folks here, but this may help.
---------------------------
on to the original point of PD's post, it shocks me that anyone would have a problem eating a turkey that is Halal. the simple fact is that it will likely taste better than a non-Halal turkey. i can attest that there is a significant difference in taste between kosher meat and non-kosher meat, so i suspect Halal is similar.
|
|
| 1609 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 17:14
|
Seriously, Muslims would be offended
Speaking for the Muslims again, only two posts after denigrating them as un-American?
Seriously. Stop projecting.
|
|
| 1610 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 17:49
|
PD
How am I putting words in their mouth?
Maybe we'll find out that Butterball has plenty of kosher butterballs out there as well and we just haven't been given the full story. No problem if so.
Tree
How could I harrass you for your religion if I don't know what it is?
If it's any form of Judaism you've certainly got no shortage of muslims around the world willing to inform you that you should die screaming.
|
|
| 1611 | sarge33rd
ID: 3010102311 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 18:08
|
...haven't been given the full story...
thats just it B, there IS no story at all. Except what one self righteous bigotted PoS so called Christian CHOOSES to try and make into a story.
So the hell what if Butterball IS making Islamic proper turkey available? THAT, is not NEWS. Unless, you're a self righteous bigotted PoS so called Christian.
|
|
| 1612 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 18:20
|
there IS no story at all. Except what one self righteous bigotted PoS so called Christian CHOOSES to try and make into a story - Sarge
I assume you are villifying Pamella Geller who wrote the story and who I am quite certain is Jewish.
And considering she is trying to stop a religion whose holy book tells their people to wipe out all Jews in the last days, from taking over the world, I'd say she's got a strong case in general.
The vocal Islamist faction are indubitably trying to Islamize America, [and the rest of the world] thru constant pressure to conform to muslim demands.
|
|
| 1613 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 19:33
|
Maybe we'll find out that Butterball has plenty of kosher butterballs out there as well and we just haven't been given the full story.
as best as i can tell, butterball doesn't sell kosher turkeys. how this is relevant to selling Halal turkeys is lost on me.
How could I harrass you for your religion if I don't know what it is?
i've discussed my religion numerous times. sometimes, because you badgered me about it.
If it's any form of Judaism you've certainly got no shortage of muslims around the world willing to inform you that you should die screaming.
i've yet to meet one. ONE.
but i've met numerous "Christians" who have harassed, badgered, threatened, or insulted me because of my religion.
|
|
| 1614 | sarge33rd
ID: 3010102311 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 20:10
|
Regardless of her religion, and the teachings of ANY religion (vs sect), her actions are directly opposed to the very principles upon which this nation was founded...that being specifically FREEDOM OF RELIGION. She works to defeat the misnamed "Ground Zero" Mosque in NYC and now she is up in arms because apparently Butterball sees fit to market Halal Turkey.
That, is not news. That, is not part of or all of 'the story'. Because, there is no NEWS story. Tell me, does Chef-Boy-Ar-Dee offer Kosher or Halal foods? Quickly. If its newsworthy that Butterball is, then it is newsworthy whether Chef Boy Ar Dee does, or Swansons or Schwans, or....
|
|
| 1615 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 20:16
|
I'm about 95% certain that when Butterball says Halal, they just mean there aren't an forbidden ingredients in the food, like pork products.
Butterball Glossary of Cooking Terms Halal – an Arabic word which means “lawful” or “allowed.” The opposite of halal is haram, which means “unlawful” or “prohibited”. Halal foods are foods that are permitted for consumption by Muslims under Islamic law. All foods are considered halal except the following, which are haram: swine/pork and its by-products; animals improperly slaughtered or dead before slaughtering; animals killed in the name of anyone other than Allah (God); alcohol and intoxicants; carnivorous animals, birds of prey and animals without external ears; blood and blood by-products; foods contaminated with any of the above products. Foods containing ingredients such as gelatin, enzymes, emulsifiers, etc. are questionable (mashbooh) because of the origin of these ingredients in not known. What a useless, contemptable hate-filled bigot Pam Geller is.
|
|
| |
| 1617 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 23:57
|
but i've met numerous "Christians" who have harassed, badgered, threatened, or insulted me because of my religion. - Tree
Not here, because you haven't revealed a thing. You could worship frogs for all we know, satan for all we know. You haven't denied or confirmed anything tho you certainly set the record for insulting religions when it comes to mine.
What a useless, contemptable hate-filled bigot Pam Geller is. - MITH
How could she be any more hate filled than you are to her? And she at least has the benefit of being accurate and true. Wow, somehow a Jew who doesn't want the world taken over by those who want to kill the Jew hiding behind every tree and rock, is hate-filled instead of merely wanting to not be beheaded by some genuinely hate-filled genocidal maniac. *sarc Peace be upon them. /*sarc
If there is such a thing as a hate crime, it's calling someone being assulted by genocidal maniacs, hate-filled when they are just trying to survive an attack.
Who is next? You want to go to the Suddan and insult the refugees for hating the rapists riding around their camps without the world interfering?
|
|
| 1618 | sarge33rd
ID: 3010102311 Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 23:59
|
B, if you honestly claim to not know Trees religion...I call BS. I think we ALL know what his faith is,....you included, so quit playing stupid.
|
|
| 1619 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:16
|
Sarge
Nope. I assume he either got picked up and converted by some chabadnik conversion van which told him he could keep all his immoral views and still hold onto some gnostic backward version of tradition, or he's in some satanic gnostic secret society which doesn't allow him to comment on it.
Really, if he's revealed it I haven't caught the exact tell. He's far more secretive about it than Bill Buckley refusing to discuss S&B membership and walking out of the room when it gets questioned.
|
|
| 1620 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:23
|
Very early on he once made it clear he wasn't anti-god but that he didn't worship my God. [which is the God of Abraham and described by the tetragrammaton so what god or gods is it?] So he isn't an athiest. That's as forthcoming as he's been.
|
|
| 1621 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:32
|
And he's explicitly denied being in a few militant Jewish secret societies I guessed at.
|
|
| 1622 | sarge33rd
ID: 3010102311 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:36
|
quit being dense B
|
|
| 1623 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:40
|
Tho secret societies believe in ends-justifies-the-means lying so those denials are questionable.
I'm not being dense. I'm considering all the possibilities which haven't been definatively ruled out. Which only rules out mine and Jewish Karaites so far. Not much progress.
|
|
| 1624 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:44
|
I'm not being dense. I'm considering all the possibilities which haven't been definatively ruled out
You just posted two opposing ideas in two sentences.
|
|
| 1625 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:46
|
And he's explicitly denied being in a few militant Jewish secret societies I guessed at.
and you've denied that your sect of Jehovah's Witnesses touches children. does that mean you're not a JW?
I assume he either got picked up and converted by some chabadnik conversion van which told him he could keep all his immoral views
i rest my case when it comes to "Christians" insulting my religion. i may not go to Chabad (although i have been to some of their services, which are quite nice), by insulting them, you're insulting just one of the many aspects of my religion. again.
i've made my religion VERY clear here. and because i'm intelligent, and able to think for myself, i don't let my religion interfere with my politics.
i am trying real hard to not make this personal, because i'd rather this post not get deleted, but the fact of the matter is that if you honestly don't know my religion at this point, you're possibly the most ignorant and clueless poster on this board.
|
|
| 1626 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:52
|
Which were? Don't blame me if secret societies present the liar's paradox..
|
|
| 1627 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:54
|
Just come clean for once. Is it Jewish for sure and if so which strain?
|
|
| 1628 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 00:56
|
Because I'm curious which version denies the traditional Jewish injunctions if it is Jewish.
|
|
| 1629 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 01:19
|
How could she be any more hate filled than you are to her?
What a terrible, vile thing to say. Purists can decide that for themselves whether a person known for her abject hatred for and successful career of slandering a people and anyone else who dares show them any cultural respect is equivalent to the contempt I have for her.
And she at least has the benefit of being accurate and true
I guess that means no more turkeys in the Boldwin house unless somebody starts making them out of pork chops.
|
|
| 1630 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 02:06
|
Spell check changes lurkers into purists for some reason.
|
|
| 1631 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 02:26
|
Do you have any evidence that she hates nominal muslims who don't feel inclined to obey the koran and chop off her head in the last days?
|
|
| 1632 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 02:31
|
I'll point out that it is very tedious to spell out the islamist faction every single sentence instead of settling for the shorthand of 'muslim' when you are discussing islamism. But it is a tedium that I think she and I perform faithfully. If a slip-up ever occurred it was a rare one.
|
|
| 1633 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 02:37
|
And I think you should prepare yourself for the day when all those muslim countries you helped 'liberate' are effectively a single islamist califate that covers a third of the globe and they go to those nominal muslims and ask if they will obey the koran and help kill all the jews in the last days or suffer the fate of the apostate.
All that previous horror that someone would actually point out the agenda in the koran, is going to come back and make you look suicidally foolish.
|
|
| 1634 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 09:18
|
Which were? Don't blame me if secret societies present the liar's paradox..
like Jehovah's Witnesses? seriously, glass houses and stones. you're free to practice your religion within the laws of the land. don't denigrate someone else's beliefs.
which strain?
which strain??? what is Judaism to you, a disease????
Because I'm curious which version denies the traditional Jewish injunctions if it is Jewish.
for starters, if you knew anything about Judaism, you'd know different branches - and different sects within those branches - believe different things. for example, Reform Judaism accepts Patriarchal lineage. Most (if not all) of the other branches only accept Matriarchal lineage.
Do you have any evidence that she hates nominal muslims
do you have any proof that Butterball producing Halal turkeys makes them any less American than anyone else?
|
|
| 1635 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 11:50
|
Do you have any evidence that she hates nominal muslims
I sure know that if someone with the media resources and reach of Pam Geller were to call for a boycott of a company like Tropicana for advertising that their products are Kosher, Boldwin wouldn't be interested in any argument that the scorn is only for the portion of Jews they find objectionable.
Pam Geller hates Islam so much that she'll happily summon her resources to attack a popular and successful American company which creates jobs for thousands of American citizens in their most important week of the year with no regard for pursuit of facts for simply advertising that their product fits within Muslim diet restrictions. Substitute Muslim out for any other culture or creed and tell me it sounds reasonable. You're so obviously clinging to an argument you know is wrong that it's embarrassing for me.
|
|
| 1636 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 12:41
|
all those muslim countries you helped 'liberate' are effectively a single islamist califate that covers a third of the globe
When I read statements like this I realize that hysterical ignorance knows no bounds.
In order for there to ever be a single islamist califate that covers a third of the globe, there would have to be a complete breakdown of nationalist, cultural as well as religious differences that are as likely as North Korea becoming the 51st state.
Notwithstanding the obvious Sunni vs. Shia divide, please regale us with how Iran/Saudi Arabia, UAE will suddenly make nice to help form this single islamist califate. Pakistan/India. Indonesia going to suddenly abandon the billions in capital it receives from global investors like China and the United States to join in on this califate? Russia will just sit idly by while the Muslim dominated areas decide to secede to join this califate? Energy rich former Soviet states like Khazakstan and Azerbaijan will cease selling their oil and gas to the west in favor of those dynamic markets in Somalia and Bangla Desh?
I suppose next we'll be told this caliphate is UN approved and Rothschild financed.
|
|
| 1637 | sarge33rd
ID: 4210322411 Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 12:49
|
and Mason endorsed.
|
|
| 1638 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 15:38
|
Go back and check out some of the unlikely allies OBL had as revealed by outrage at his assassination over social networks.
China for sure, and almost certainly, Russia will be against us.
I suppose next we'll be told this caliphate is UN approved and Rothschild financed.
Soros and his master are behind the organizations that started the Egypt revolution and the Libya revolution. They were up to their eyeballs in those. I posted links to it at the time.
I haven't researched whether he was behind the others that are coming right behind those two, but don't bet a penny against finding Soros sponsored think tanks behind those too.
In order for there to ever be a single islamist califate that covers a third of the globe, there would have to be a complete breakdown of nationalist, cultural as well as religious differences...
When The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's leaders see a worldwide califate develop over the muslim third of the world in just a few short years so easy it's almost like magic...
...their religious leaders who have been predicting a single caliphate and the appearance of a hidden mahdi for centuries, will recognize a mahdi to lead that caliphate and all those centuries of arguing about previous avatars that represent the sunni/shia split will evaporate like frost on the golf course at sunrise.
|
|
| 1639 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 15:52
|
Go back and check out some of the unlikely allies OBL had...
Ronald Reagan?
I posted links to it at the time.
yes, you did. and like about 95 percent of the rest of your links, there is almost no substance. posting a link doesn't make it so. it being on the internet doesn't make it so. you posting it CERTAINLY doesn't make it so.
|
|
| 1640 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 16:05
|
Yeah, Reagan would have been outraged at OBL's assassination. Troll.
|
|
| 1641 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 16:14
|
Why would he want to assassinate someone he sent weapons to?
Troll.
|
|
| 1642 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 16:28
|
One can be outraged at how someone was killed without agreeing with any of that person's views.
This death by association thing has really gone too far.
|
|
| 1643 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 5310322516 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 17:34
|
(PV) I suppose next we'll be told this caliphate is UN approved and Rothschild financed.
(B BEING SERIOUS) Soros and his master are behind the organizations that started the Egypt revolution and the Libya revolution. They were up to their eyeballs in those. I posted links to it at the time.
I just shot some raspberry ginger ale and Jameson out of my nose, I laughed so hard.
The forum just got awesomer.
|
|
| 1644 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 18:27
|
#1638 This post is a further descension into buffoonery.
Soros and his master are behind the organizations that started the Egypt revolution and the Libya revolution. They were up to their eyeballs in those. I posted links to it at the time.
I haven't researched whether he was behind the others that are coming right behind those two, but don't bet a penny against finding Soros sponsored think tanks behind those too.
You haven't researched jack shit. You conveniently cherry pick items about Soros/Rothschilds that fit your beliefs, while ignoring items that don't, such as a pretty common belief among Rothschild conspiracy theorists, including your hero David Icke
Israel is not a home for Jewish people.
Let us not mince words here. The time for pussyfooting is over.
Israel is a base for the terrorists who created and control that state to operate, on behalf of the House of Rothschild and the Elite, a global terror and manipulation network.
That is why it was created after the war and the influence of its intelligence arm, Mossad, is so vast for such a tiny country because Mossad is really the intelligence agency of the Rothschild - Rockefeller - Global Elite, while genuine Jewish people who live in Israel (the vast, vast majority) are used as an innocent front, a smokescreen, for this.
So, too, is the suffering of Jews in Nazi Germany which resulted from the manipulating of the Nazis into power by, among others, 'Jewish' financial and political forces....
So if we are to believe Soros and his master are behind the organizations that started the Egypt revolution and the Libya revolution
we must also believe that Soros and his master are the force behind Israeli Zionism, which, ironically is fully supported by almost all the Republican candidates(except Ron Paul and including B's top 3 of West, Bachmann and Cain) as well as just about every commentator and pundit Boldwin assures us are "real conservatives." There's no getting around the fact that the Rothchilds were instrumental in the creation of Israel. But according to Simon Schama's book, "Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel", the House of Rothschild had acquired 80% of the land of Israel. They also paid the expenses of the early settlers, manipulated into being the 1917 Balfour Declaration which recognized Israel as a Jewish homeland, funded the Nazis and created Mossad and the terrorist underground in Palestine.
Israel was founded by, and has always been controlled by, the Rothschilds and the rest of the Elite. The "Jewish homeland" scam is just a smokescreen and Jewish people are pawns in the game.
The leaders and participants in this terror network later became leaders and prime ministers of the new Israel. People like David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yitzhak Shamir, the head of the Mossad assassination squad at the time of Kennedy's murder.
It turns out Boldwin and like-minded conservatives are actually big fans of the Rothschilds and Soros in their struggle against the Muslims who want to kill all the jews in the last days or suffer the fate of the apostate.
When The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's leaders see a worldwide califate develop over the muslim third of the world in just a few short years so easy it's almost like magic...
And you base this prognostication on what? Not any facts or geopolitical reality. This is an attempt to make bold, provacative statements in order to satisfy a self-importance that is more in tune with Walter Mitty than any serious researcher.
|
|
| 1645 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 18:34
|
FTW.
|
|
| 1646 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 19:49
|
What really really annoys me is that when I am proved right, you'd think that if there was any justice in the world you guys would offer an apology. Some appreciation even.
But nooooo.
Before it even registers that you owe me, all you lovers of tolerance and diversity, who have vilified me for knowing what the koran actually says and daring to reveal it...who called me bigoted for quoting their words to you...
...you will round on me like zombie pod people hissing and spitting and pointing, 'hey these people waring against us believe we are in the last days, YOU believe we are in the last days! Get the true believer!'
Oh no, there won't be any, 'If only we'd listened to Boldwin'. How did he figure that out? [it was obvious]
We'll see who the anti-religious bigots are that day.
|
|
| 1647 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 19:58
|
And you base this prognostication on what?
I base it on the movements getting huge Tides Foundation financial support like 'Take The Square'.
Movements you guys support.
Sudden democracy in muslim dominated countries goes to the revolutionary faction which is most organized and prepared, ready and willing to take extreme actions'. In every muslim country that is the islamist faction.
But tho the answer is as obvious as the black al qeada flag flying over a government building in Libya, you can't see it.
|
|
| 1648 | sarge33rd
ID: 310132512 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 20:02
|
What really really annoys me is that when I am proved right, ...
You have yet to admit, that you were ever wrong. Quit wallowing in undeserved self-congratulatory pity and grow up.
|
|
| 1649 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 20:18
|
For the sake of all the lives I think will soon be snuffed out, starting with the christians in countless countries, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong on this one.
|
|
| 1650 | sarge33rd
ID: 310132512 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 20:58
|
You are wrong....
with your Christian persecution complex; you are wrong....
with your constant disparaging remarks re EVERY other religion out there; you are wrong....
with your ultra conservative posturing; you are wrong....
with your near worship of AC; you are wrong....
with your endless villainization of all things left of Limbaugh; you are wrong...
|
|
| 1651 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 21:26
|
all the lives I think will soon be snuffed out, starting with the christians in countless countries
Other than Nigeria, where the Christian population experiences the ravages of a radically violent Muslim contingency based in the north, I'm at a loss to come up with countless countries. Even Egypt, which recently experienced a limited clash between Coptic Christians and Muslims, doesn't fall into the category. Same with Kenya, with a decent size Christian population and the spill-over of violence from Somalia, but more likely sporadic incidents than widespread genocide. Speaking of Somalia, where's the concern for the hundreds of thousands currently starving there?
Most lives being snuffed out in the world these days is the result of Muslims killing Muslims.
Where are these countless countries where Christians are in such immediate danger of being snuffed out?
|
|
| 1652 | Tree
ID: 5310452520 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 21:45
|
You've already made yourself a martyr, Baldwin. Are you building your own crucifix too?
|
|
| 1653 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 22:46
|
 Meh.
If I wanted to read Boldwin's kind of bigoted garbage I'd just load up Stormfront.
It's a damn shame that one person can sully an entire message board like this with no repercussions whatsoever. Guru, sorry -- you had a good thing here once. It's gone now.
|
|
| 1654 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 23:05
|
Truly sad. GIGO.
|
|
| 1655 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522 Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 23:24
|
Where are these countless countries where Christians are in such immediate danger of being snuffed out?
After you've completed your mistake with Iran, spreading that brain-dead plan to every muslim country.
No matter how many times I post it, you keep forgetting the muslim saying, First the Saturday people (the Jews), then the Sunday people (the Christians)." You can't miss it. It's on graffiti all over Bethlehem. They aren't bashful about their plans. You are just willfully deaf.
|
|
| 1656 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 00:27
|
A Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo's most prominent mosque Friday turned into a venomous anti-Israel protest, with attendants vowing to "one day kill all Jews." Some 5,000 people joined the rally, called to promote the "battle against Jerusalem's Judaization." The event coincided with the anniversary of the United Nations' partition plan in 1947, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state.
Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen, as well as Palestinian guest speakers, made explicit calls for Jihad and for liberating the whole of Palestine. Time and again, a Koran quote vowing that "one day we shall kill all the Jews" was uttered at the site. Meanwhile, businessmen in the crowd were urged to invest funds in Jerusalem in order to prevent the acquisition of land and homes by Jews. Throughout the event, Muslim Brotherhood activists chanted: "Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, judgment day has come." In case you were wondering how 'then the Sunday people' was going to turn out.
|
|
| 1657 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 00:38
|
After you've completed your mistake with Iran, spreading that brain-dead plan to every muslim country.
WTF are you talking about? I have a small business in Utah. I have no plan for Iran and neither do you.
You can't miss it. It's on graffiti all over Bethlehem.
I've never even been to Bethlehem, Pa., so, yeah, I could easily miss it. But I have been to Tijuana, and seen the "Gringo Go Home" graffiti.
So, again. Where are these countless countries where Christians are in such immediate danger of being snuffed out?
|
|
| 1658 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 01:05
|
You can't miss it. It's on graffiti all over Bethlehem.
you've been to israel lately? cool! where else did you go?
Some 5,000 people joined the rally, called to promote the "battle against Jerusalem's Judaization." The event coincided with the anniversary of the United Nations' partition plan in 1947, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state.
Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen, as well as Palestinian guest speakers, made explicit calls for Jihad and for liberating the whole of Palestine. Time and again, a Koran quote vowing that "one day we shall kill all the Jews" was uttered at the site. Meanwhile, businessmen in the crowd were urged to invest funds in Jerusalem in order to prevent the acquisition of land and homes by Jews.
here's where i call you out as a liar, because lying by omission is still lying.
that first paragraph you reprinted above? the one that ends in "which called for the establishment of a Jewish state"? you completely left out what came after that in the original argument, instead choosing to re-write the article to fit your own bigoted view.
the actual next paragraph was However, most worshippers who prayed at the mosque Friday quickly left it before the Muslim Brotherhood's rally got underway. A group spokesman urged attendants to remain for the protest, asking them not to create a bad impression for the media by leaving.
nice of you to leave that part out. it's a VERY telling part, and one that doesn't tell your bigoted view.
|
|
| 1659 | sarge33rd
ID: 310132512 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 02:03
|
What must wonder, what specifically is the difference between Muslims holding an anti-Jewish rally, and Christians boycotting Butterball as an anti0Islam protest? I mean honestly, each is a narrow minded antagonistic event, are they not?
|
|
| 1660 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 03:35
|
When the muslim brotherhood is in power they wouldn't dare leave. Read up on what life was like under the taliban.
each is a narrow minded antagonistic event, are they not?
Yeah, one is a narrow minded incitement to kill all the jews and then the rest of the infidels.
And the other is a protest of the plan. Very narrow minded that will to live.
|
|
| 1661 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 08:56
|
again, if i were worried about who's trying to "kill the Jews", i'd be more worried about Christians than Muslims.
the history of mass murder and persecution of Jews tilts heavily toward Christians.
and, i'll point out again, that I've never had a Muslim harass or insult me because of my religion. But I've had plenty of Christians do just that, including right here on this board, Baldwin.
|
|
| 1662 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 09:25
|
People 'here on the board' would have to know your religion to do so.
|
|
| 1663 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 09:28
|
And the idea that you would feel safer in a muslim dominated country is ridiculous on it's face.
|
|
| 1664 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 11:00
|
You don't even feel safe in a christian dominated country.
|
|
| 1665 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 11:44
|
Or whatever religion you believe Obama to be.
|
|
| 1666 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 12:03
|
When the muslim brotherhood is in power they wouldn't dare leave. Read up on what life was like under the taliban.
This is another good example of just how lazy you've become on this board.
There is the Muslim Brotherhood. There is the Taliban. They are completely different entities operating in completely different geographical areas with completely different origins, completely different operating procedures and completely different political allies and enemies.
It's like comparing the Irish Republican Army to the Southern Baptists. The Taliban is and always has been a military-based movement limited to Afghanistan(and Pakistan since 2001), while the Muslim Brotherhood has been a hybrid religious/political movement, with no military outlet and little influence outside the Arab states.
The Brotherhood's nonviolent stance has resulted in breakaway groups from the movement, including the Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya and Al Takfir Wal Hijra.[21] Osama bin Laden similarly criticized the Brotherhood, and accused it of betraying jihad and the ideals of Sayyid Qutb, an influential Brother member and author of Milestones link
Since the Muslim Brotherhood has never controlled a national government, it's impossible to state that once in power they wouldn't dare leave, because unless they have a well-armed faction committed to keeping them in power, which they don't, it's just pointless speculation.
Obviously that could change. But you'd need to provide some type of evidence to show that the Muslim Brotherhood is arming itself to the teeth, or forming alliances with those already armed to the teeth, in order to give any credibility to your fears.
Something like this article:
Certainly, after the death of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya last month, Assad had become the key villain of the Arab Spring; a distraction in the form of chaos in Egypt could not come at a more welcome time for either Assad or his Iranian patrons.
In this line of thought, it is worth noting that high-ranking Israeli intelligence officers have been warning for months now of an ongoing Iranian infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood. While some of these claims are clearly tendentious, it does not take a very high level of penetration to instigate a riot in a situation that is fraught with tensions.
A certain amount of less sophisticated penetration of Egypt by pro-Iranian elements is clearly visible in the Sinai Peninsula, which has become a terror hub of sorts in the past months, and has reportedly turned into a major smuggling route of Libyan weapons into the Gaza Strip.
Some of these arms go to the Hamas movement, which rules Gaza, and is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood; others go to more radical Islamists who are even more closely dependent to Iran, such as the Islamic Jihad.
The relationship between the different Palestinian factions is a very complicated topic in its own right. This status quo, too, is at stake in the Egyptian crisis. link
There, I've given you some ammunition. Possibly an intelligent and adult discussion of the topic can follow as opposed to After you've completed your mistake with Iran, spreading that brain-dead plan to every muslim country type of nonsense.
|
|
| 1667 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 12:28
|
People 'here on the board' would have to know your religion to do so.
people "here on this board" do know my religion. there's not a soul here who even needs to guess, because it's common knowledge.
the only one who harasses me about it is one person who proclaims himself to be the most "Christian" of the bunch.
And the idea that you would feel safer in a muslim dominated country is ridiculous on it's face.
i've been in several muslim-dominated nations and never had one person say anything about my religion, which isn't true for the US, particularly here in the South.
|
|
| 1668 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 12:31
|
Here's another excellent article, suprisingly objective analysis found on Townhall.
|
|
| 1669 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 13:53
|
It's much simpler than that.
If it is shia and active today, it sprang from the Ayatollah Komeini, thank you Jimmy Carter for nothing.
If it is sunni and salafist and active today, it sprang from the Muslim Brotherhood.The Muslim Brotherhood's goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam's manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia. - MB wiki As such it is a transnational movement to achieve that. It has various political manifestations. It has various military manifestations.
All the parsing between MB front groups is just that. It isn't any more useful than trying to explain the difference between the IRA and Sein Fein. They are all distinctions without a difference.
In one variation or another they feel free to advance militarily, in other iterations they work politically and more cautiously due to [well justified] supression in that particular state.
Muslim Brotherhood front groups include but are not limited to:
Branches in every muslim country with the goals of fundraising, infiltrating and overtaking other Muslim organisations
al qeada
Al Eslah Society
Al-Menbar Islamic Society.
Hamas
Islamic Action Front
Iraqi Islamic Party
Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU)
Hadas
Yemeni Congregation for Reform, commonly known as Islah
Movement for the Society of Peace (MSP, previously known as Hamas in Algeria)
Virtually the entire government of Sudan as it is guided by the National Islamic Front (NIF)
Harakat Al-Islah or "Reform Movement" of Somalia
Ennahda (The Revival or Renaissance Party) of Tunisia
The Supreme Military Majlis ul-Shura of the United Forces of Caucasian Mujahedeen
Muslim Students Association - USA
CAIR - USA
North American Islamic Trust - USA
Islamic Society of North America - USA
American Muslim Council - USA
Muslim American Society - USA
International Institute of Islamic Thought - USA
East London Mosque - UK
And so on...
|
|
| 1670 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 14:11
|
They're everywhere!
Better go hide, Boldwin. We'll let you know when it is safe.
|
|
| 1671 | sarge33rd
ID: 1610252611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 15:13
|
Odd, how B will quote the founder of another organization he doesnt like, and attribute that persons statements as the goal of the organization; yet the founder of his own religion....is credited with correcting himself, despite an obviously anti-social behavior.
Tell me B, how is it that you ignore the statements of those you like, and hold as etched in stone, the statements of those you do not?
Your double standard judgementalism, is not something to be proud of.
|
|
| 1672 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 16:31
|
Don't swallow your own disinformation.
|
|
| 1673 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 17:51
|
Sarge, bigots gonna bigot, you can't stop it, you can only hope to contain it.
There are spots for intelligent conversation with reasonable people on the Internet. It's a shame this is no longer one of them. I don't know who Boldwin has naked pictures of, but whatever the blackmail money is, I'll double it.
|
|
| 1674 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 19:03
|
Al Qeada is a Muslim Brotherhood front group? Find me one non-Islamophobe who will verify that claim.
|
|
| 1675 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 19:11
|
Preferably from the last decade, please.
|
|
| 1676 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 20:09
|
Since then the Muslim Brotherhood has created 70 offshoot Islamic organizations across the world, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas. - Human Events this year
|
|
| 1677 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 21:09
|
While I might contest Human Events' status as a non-islamophobic propaganda outlet, what I meant by "from the last decade" was a verification that they have acted as an al Qaeda front group in the last decade. From my understanding, anyone in al Qaeda will tell you that they are enemies.
In the social media thread I've asked repeatedly for evidence that Muslim Brotherhood's pro-violent jihad past is still it's MO today. These requests have been ignored every single time.
|
|
| 1678 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 21:21
|
Bridgette Gabriel, the author of the Human Events story, is most assuredly an Islamophobe.
A much better, and more honest article on the MB/AQ can be found in this analysis from the Jamestown Foundation.
|
|
| 1679 | sarge33rd
ID: 1610252611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 21:26
|
404 error for me PV
|
|
| 1680 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 21:49
|
link
|
|
| 1681 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 22:22
|
was a verification that they have acted as an al Qaeda front group in the last decade.
Other way around. MB is the mother. AQ is the front group. AQ is just one militant wing among many.
I don't know what's so hard to understand. You have no trouble I assume, understanding that Sein fein and the IRA are the same movement, one political wing, one military...no difference in goal or ethics. It serves both their purposes to denounce any reticence towards violent jihad. MB is all for violent jihad. They are only posing as non-violent to fulfill one portion of the Islamist agenda. The political one.
|
|
| 1682 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 22:25
|
PV
Yes yes, I appreciate the tautology. I can't quote anyone with a large enuff IQ not to take MB's non-violent protestations at face value.
|
|
| 1683 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 22:47
|
I don't know what's so hard to understand.
Well please pardon my ignorance and stupidity for the moment and entertain the question I've been asking for almost a year:The worst thing I see about the modern MB is its affiliation with Hamas. How much material support exists there? Is there other recent pro-terrorism activity I'm missing? While I'd certainly be wary of organizations with a history of terrorist activity and ties, I also understand that national power struggles are very complicated things. Frankly I'd be shocked to learn the Irish and Israeli governments, for example, are free of elements with links to terrorist activity.
|
|
| 1684 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 22:57
|
What do you think organizing demonstrations chanting 'We will kill all the Jews' is if not incitement to terrorism? They haven't condemned terrorism and genocide. They haven't renounced their original goals of first a single caliphate over the muslim countries and then the entire world. Unless you like that outcome, get your head out of the sand.
|
|
| 1686 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 23:18
|
Actually they have renounced violence. I don't know about their organization of demonstrations chanting 'We will kill all the Jews'. But I do know that both the tea party and some state RNCs organize events where white supremecist propaganda material is sold, though you've not heard me call either of those groups white supremecist organizations.
And they have renounced violence. And of course the best way to measure that renouncement is to observe their committment to it.
SO I ASK YET AGAIN, please point me to Muslim Brotherhood links to terrorist activity in the last decade.
|
|
| 1687 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 23:41
|
Why isn't the word of the director of the FBI good enuff?Feb 2011:
Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House committee Thursday.
|
|
| 1688 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 00:23
|
Can't find a transcript of what Mueller said to check for context. No offense but from a vast quantity of experience I know better than to simply trust you on that sort of thing.
Why aren't you able to provide any recent examples of MB terrorist ties and activity. I've been asking since February.
|
|
| 1689 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 00:45
|
I categorically deny that's a valid question. I'm just humoring you.
It's the mother of virtually every sunni terrorist organization in the world today. So what if they keep to the political side of their terrorist mission? That's just smart of terrorists to have a political arm. So they can consolidate thru politics what they have won thru intimidation.
They started Hamas. You don't think Hamas is actively involved in terrorism every day? Your splitting hairs is absurd.
If I stab you with my left hand and shake your hand with my right, do you really trust either hand?
|
|
| 1690 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 01:01
|
They haven't renounced their original goals of first a single caliphate over the muslim countries and then the entire world.
Where do you come up with this stuff? The original(and likely current) goal of the Muslim Brotherhood was a caliphate of pan-Arabism, which does not consist a third of the world as you have claimed, much less the entire world. Look at the list posted in #1669. Almost entirely Arab and North African, with some ridiculous other stuff thrown in. Had you allowed the Jamestown Foundation link to put a dent in your pre-determined beliefs based on the most extreme interpretations imagineable you could have absorbed:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has not remained quiet in the face of such criticism. Issam al-Aryan, the Muslim Brotherhood's spokesman, responded to al-Zawahiri's comments by putting him in the same camp as secularists and supporters and apologists of the Egyptian regime who oppose the Brotherhood's participation in elections (al-Sharq al-Awsat, January 7). Other senior members of the Brotherhood, such as Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, have used al-Zawahiri's criticism to further distance themselves from the taint of al-Qaeda's violent tactics and to prove their credentials as serious politicians who are capable of moderation and compromise. Referring to al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda, Fotouh states, "Those people aren't politicians. They believe in change through violence. That's not what we're about…If there is anything to be realized from these elections, it is that people will choose a moderate Islam" (Ikhwanweb.com, March 10).
It's important when examining the Muslim world to understand that it's impossible to compartmentalize into hysterical epithats like demonstrations chanting 'We will kill all the Jews', because, while that contingency certainly exists, as well as those who incite violent jihad, within the Brotherhood and beyond, it isn't necessarily the defining aspect of much of the Muslim world.
Take, for instance, one of those groups listed in #1669, the KIU, who, according to the
BBC,
The Kurdistan Islamic Union, the largest Kurdish Islamist group, has a long record of providing welfare work and peaceful political campaigns. The group has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The obvious intent of that list was to show organizations with ties to the MB are just like Al Qeada, the first organization on the list. This is propaganda of the most insidious kind, a guilt by association similar to saying the KKK is an offshoot of the Christian Coalition.
|
|
| 1691 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 01:04
|
I haven't denied that "elements with the group" (Mueller's words which you see no reason question) have been had organizational ties with terrorist groups since possibly as recently as the early 90s. But the larger group has since made an attempt to publicly legitimize themselves. Since then, active Islamist terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda have lined up to call them traitors to Allah and jihad.
I also assume that hardline faction likely remain within the larger group, but honestly have no idea how much sway they hold today. So I'd love to know more about their recent ties to terrorist activity, which seems a logical enough question to ask. But you reject the question out of hand as... invalid?
I guess we're at an impasse. You feel it's absurd to question the islamofascist intentions of the group despite offering no examples of any such islamofascist activity in the last two decades, and also feel it's absurd to ask why there are no examples. I don't think this is how an honest exchange of ideas is supposed to work.
|
|
| 1692 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 01:09
|
It's the mother of virtually every sunni terrorist organization in the world today.
Where did you learn these propaganda techniques?
|
|
| 1693 | Boldwin
ID: 110542611 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 11:32
|
How many bombs did Gerry Adams plant as leader of Sein Fein?
Nevertheless he was a leader, possibly the leader of a terrorist movement and he approved of terrorism undoubtedly. That's beyond question no matter what posture of deniability he cultivated for political reasons.
So the MB spends part of their history at arms length with the miltary wings they set up, in order to stay out of Egyptian torture cells and in order to pursue the political ends of their terrorist movement. The terrorist movement they are the mother of.
|
|
| 1694 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 4610112711 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 12:12
|
Bah. Your premise is at best flawed, and at worst a slippery slope, Baldwin. By your "reasoning" you can substitute a few words and get this: So the Reagan administration (dba the CIA) spends part of their history at arms length with the mujhadeen they set up, in order to stay out of (insert rendition friendly country here) freedom fighter cells and in order to pursue the political ends of their foreign policy. The foreign policy they are the mother of. Once again your Machivellian worldview goes something like this: Zealous believers are bad, and their actions are horrific, unless they're our zealots. Or their aims align with ours for a minute of two.
|
|
| 1695 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 12:17
|
So your answer is that an organization should never be trusted to abandon it's terrorist roots, even if decades pass since the last actual terrorist involvement?
If so, I'm pretty sure I could offer a few non-Muslim examples of former terrorist organizations that you happily extend that benefit of doubt to.
|
|
| 1696 | sarge33rd
ID: 1610252611 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 13:25
|
English Christianity anyone?
Little thing called The Crusades?
Or Spains inquisition?
What were the Salem Trials, if not terrorism?
Tell us B, how much time MUST pass, for the organization to be "clean" in your eyes?
|
|
| 1697 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:31
|
The only way to become clean is to 'Get out of her my people'. - Rev 18:4
Something some people would accomplish only in the last days. [thus it's discussion in Revelations]
That would be get out of Babylon. The mother of mystery religion and corruption which worms it's way into every organization.
That unclean thing would be the mystery religion you wish you could belong to if only you weren't an athiest and they would let you in.
Oh yeah, you 'fixed that' admission problem.
|
|
| 1698 | sarge33rd
ID: 11022715 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:34
|
My God, and the dictatorial one you worship, are not the same.
|
|
| 1699 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:37
|
i really don't have much more of a reaction other than laughing...
Emma Sullivan, a high school senior, tweeted "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person" after listening to the Republican governor speak.
She did not actually make any comments to him - but after his office received word of the tweet, they alerted Sullivan's high school. She was quickly summoned to the principal, who told her she must write a letter of apology - which is due on Monday."
so, the Governor's office tattletaled on a high schooler who said he "sucked"? lol. wow.
|
|
| 1700 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:38
|
That unclean thing would be the mystery religion you wish you could belong to if only you weren't an athiest and they would let you in.
how Christian of you to judge other people. man, if there really is a heaven and hell, you are going to be one sorely disappointed man. make sure you dress for warm weather.
|
|
| 1701 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:40
|
My God, and the dictatorial one you worship, are not the same.
I know who the mystery religion really worships if you get thru all 33 levels.
|
|
| 1702 | sarge33rd
ID: 11022715 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:58
|
lmao for what? the 714th time? I am not and never have been...a Mason. You sir, are a fkn idiot.
|
|
| 1703 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 20:25
|
didn't realize Jehovah's Witnesses had so many levels. which one is the one where they cover up certain secrets?
(sorry mods, if Baldwin is going to continually be allowed to bait people with what they do believe (my religion, for example), or what they don't believe (his constant harassment of Sarge), then his beliefs need to be allowed to held up to the same scrutiny.)
|
|
| 1704 | sarge33rd
ID: 11022715 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 00:51
|
"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."
As many stones as you so easily throw B, I must ask you how it feels, to be so divinely without sin yourself?
|
|
| 1705 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 03:59
|
Jesus exposed those who had corrupted the truth and I follow his footsteps.
|
|
| 1706 | sarge33rd
ID: 111056284 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 05:56
|
So you compare yourself to a divine being? Do you possess the same gifts of all knowing sight? If not, arent you a mere pretender and false gawd in your own right?
|
|
| 1707 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 06:35
|
You are aware we are supposed to follow his footsteps closely?
It doesn't say, 'He's perfect, don't act like him or you might be accused of blasphemy'.
|
|
| 1708 | sarge33rd
ID: 111056284 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 06:39
|
You sir, are lost. I feel for you. But the path you are on, is not the right one.
|
|
| 1709 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 06:41
|
While you are at it, read Revelation and watch John 'throw stones' at the whore of Babylon.
|
|
| 1710 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 11:07
|
Jesus exposed those who had corrupted the truth and I follow his footsteps.
working with silent lambs then to expose "those who had corrupted the truth"?
|
|
| 1711 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 11:38
|
If they exist at all they can go to the police and get exposure. But if there wasn't enuff evidence to prove it in the first case, it's no lock that it can be proven in the second examination.
|
|
| 1712 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 12:12
|
If they exist at all they can go to the police and get exposure. But if there wasn't enuff evidence to prove it in the first case, it's no lock that it can be proven in the second examination.
since when does that matter to you. you've practically made a career out of false and unproven accusations.
|
|
| 1713 | sarge33rd
ID: 010232811 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 12:38
|
But B, there was sufficient evidence in the biblical tale, to have taken the woman to the "police". She was after all, caught in the act. me thinks, you have entirely missed the point of the lesson. And FTR, there are sufficient nrs of allegations, to give one pause to consider that some are most likely justified and accurate.
|
|
| 1714 | sarge33rd
ID: 010232811 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 12:42
|
{sarcasm} Yeah KS {/sarcasm}
|
|
| 1715 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 13:02
|
I don't believe Boldwin has a clear idea of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
No surprise about a guy who can no longer distinguish between his political philosophy and his faith. We're now seeing how this hybrid "poligious faith" can ruin both.
|
|
| 1716 | sarge33rd
ID: 010232811 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 13:28
|
The accuracy of 1715, is not at all in question.
|
|
| 1717 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 15:07
|
PD
You cannot distinguish what works best in the real world and utopianism.
I am not claiming left or right works.
I'm just pointing out that left is unbearable and right works somewhat better in real life. Not great, not perfect, just better.
Your utopianism works out to be a disaster in real life.
Neither left nor right is God's kingdom nor with they become God's kingdom.
They will synthesize into communitarianism and that won't work, and that won't become God's kingdom either.a guy who can no longer distinguish between his political philosophy and his faith My political philosophy is only God has the ability to run things properly. My political philosophy is to wait for God's kingdom.
But I'm happy to point out the dead ends that lead to death camps, crushing dictatorships and world wars while we wait. Your utopianism for example.
|
|
| 1718 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 15:32
|
Damn liberals, starting 'Nam and shipping arms to terrorists.
|
|
| 1719 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 15:36
|
But I'm happy to..
With respect, being happy to be a dick on these boards isn't Christian.
Maybe your happiness at doing what you do here should no longer be your goal. If you are going to bear a cross, make sure it actually give you pause, at minimum.
|
|
| 1720 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 16:01
|
I'm happy to point out the dead ends that lead to death camps, crushing dictatorships and world wars
The irony is that your positions unwittingly often lead to death camps, crushing dictatorships and world wars.
|
|
| 1721 | Boldwin
ID: 4110312718 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 17:31
|
Yeaaaaah, *snicker*, free market capitalism and free republics lead to death camps. Riiiight.
|
|
| 1722 | sarge33rd
ID: 010232811 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 17:32
|
The right, isnt for free anything, except their ability to freely tell the rest if us what we can believe.
|
|
| |
| 1724 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 20:20
|
or 1699 for that matter.
|
|
| 1725 | sarge33rd
ID: 010232811 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 21:32
|
lol ooops :)
|
|
| |
| 1727 | Boldwin
ID: 1510432817 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 23:12
|
It's the CFR. Nothing more needs to be said.
|
|
| 1728 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 23:25
|
Nothing more needs to be said.
One can only hope. Great essay by Drezner. His admiration of Huntsman's foreign policy acumen is duly noted:
To be fair, former U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman has demonstrated a superior command of foreign policy issues.
The best of the lot of the current GOP crowd. He might suprise a lot of folks with his showing in New Hampshire. Additionally, Huntsman is the candidate Obama would least like to meet next November.
|
|
| 1729 | Boldwin
ID: 1510432817 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 08:12
|
Additionally, Huntsman is the candidate Obama would least like to meet next November.
How long did it take to stop laffing after you typed that one? Please don't throw me into the briar patch.
|
|
| 1730 | Frick
ID: 387512315 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 08:57
|
I'm going to agree with PV. The hard-core right wants an extremist, the love of Cain seems to prove that. Republican's like Drezner, sadly called RINO's now, are not going to vote along party lines just because the box has an R next to it. If moderate Republicans are going to favor Obama you can only assume that independent moderates are most likely going to vote for Obama as well. I'm not going to be surprised if this election has record low turn-outs for a presidential election and is a massive landslide for Obama.
|
|
| 1731 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 09:21
|
while i don't think it's going to be 525-13, i do think that 1730 is right on, and it's not going to be pretty for the a Republican candidate who is anything other than a moderate (aka traditional Republican).
|
|
| 1732 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 09:24
|
How long did it take to stop laffing after you typed that one?
Ah yes, the old 'my blogging prowess is so renown that the Clintons had me audited which gives me free pass to insult and belittle fellow political posters whose grasp of politics pales in comparison and is therefore inconsequential' ploy.
|
|
| 1733 | Building 7
ID: 541057215 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 13:06
|
Huntsman is the best speaker of the bunch.
|
|
| 1734 | sarge33rd
ID: 5110122912 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 13:12
|
speaking as a Dem, I am truly baffled by the disdain for Huntsman. He is the only Rep candidate who does NOT drag along 87 train car loads of negative baggage; is a decidedly conservative candidate; has a SOLID understanding of international affairs; is quite well spoken and yet....is so far behind even Ron Paul in the polls that it is hard to imagine him getting credit as an "also ran". Of all the current GOP candidates, he is the only one, with even an outside shot, at unseating Pres Obama.
So as a Dem, I will say thank-you to the hard right GOP. You are nailing your own coffin shut.
|
|
| 1735 | walk
ID: 348442710 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 16:34
|
Yeah, word on Huntsman. I have watched most of the debates, and if I had to choose one of the republican candidates, I would not hesitate at choosing Huntsman. He is not as known and not zealot enough (on tax pledge, science, international affairs, etc.), for the republican base though (and I don't think his Mormon background is a plus with the base either), which I guess is why he is polling so far behind. A debate b/w Huntsman and Obama would be interesting.
|
|
| 1736 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 17:22
|
And if they gave Obama voters two votes he'd even get some votes.
I will say that it is strange that he doesn't get anything like pass for being Obama's buddy as Gingerich gets for being Pelosi's Cap-N-Trade global governance buddy.
I guess Gingerich is still getting credits for his enormous efforts on behalf of conservatives in the distant past.
|
|
| 1737 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 17:26
|
Gingrich is getting "being a dick points" which the Far Right value much more than actual legislative achievements, or workable foreign policy initiatives.
We know this for a lot of reasons, but also because Gingrich himself is taking hits simply for asking for a "humane" approach to immigration reform for those who have been in this country 25 years or longer.
|
|
| 1738 | sarge33rd
ID: 4310132913 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 17:36
|
1736 WTF are you going on about?
|
|
| 1739 | walk
ID: 348442710 Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 09:35
|
"Being a dick points" -- LOL!
|
|
| 1740 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 11:20
|
Chris Christie's specialty.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1743 | sarge33rd
ID: 32118111 Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 17:16
|
The Republicans Farcical Candidates
The current Republican crop of candidates.
The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation. Info
Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed -- well, they shouldn't make such a big deal about it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.
As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.
It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.
|
|
| 1744 | sarge33rd
ID: 32118111 Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 17:58
|
from the link above, I think it hard to state a more clear, and accurate evaluation of just exactly WHAT, the Tea Party truly is:
What a nice club that is. A club of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. "A starting point for a chronicle of American decline," was how David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, described the current Republican race.
The Tea Party would take issue with that assessment. They cheer the loudest for the worst, only to see them fail, as expected, one by one. Which goes to show that this "movement," sponsored by Fox News, has never been interested in the actual business of governing or in the intelligence and intellect that requires. They are only interested in marketing themselves, for ratings and dollars.
|
|
| 1745 | sarge33rd
ID: 17117210 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 14:50
|
Jobless rate fell to 8.6%
OH oh GOP...better get serious in your efforts to sabotage the nation if you hope to unseat the president. Oh wait, you HAVE been serious in your efforts to block, stop, deny and impede. Nevermind.
|
|
| 1746 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 20:09
|
The Labor Department has been consistently revising the job creation numbers upward for several months now.
That said, my understanding is that some of the downward trend in the number this month had to do with some technical adjustments in how they did measurements.
I'm sure Baldwin will post about it and slam Obama for hiding the true numbers...
|
|
| |
| 1748 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 20:56
|
That link is well worth reading.
But never forget K isn't showing his own neocon hand when he poses as impartial commentator. Republicans should not be fooled into letting him pick their nominee any more than they should let the MSM.
|
|
| 1749 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 21:03
|
At last, common ground.
Republicans should not be fooled into letting him pick their nominee
Not sure if you just intend that in mnore general terms but I don't think he favored either candidate in that piece.
|
|
| 1750 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 21:08
|
I just realized the link to page 2 of that column is bad.
WAPO has the full piece.
|
|
| 1751 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 22:13
|
Maybe his real intention was to further corral republicans away from the real conservatives like Bachmann, the bette noir of the neocon.
|
|
| 1752 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 22:58
|
I'm not so sure a President Bachmann's foreign policy would be so different from the neocon ideal. As far as I can tell she pretty much tows the party line. And since 9/11, the GOP's foreign policy line is pretty reliable neoconservatism (except when it's politically convenient to embrace a non-interventionist position to trash Obama).
And while you and I disagree on whether neoconservatism is an ideology that extends into domestic politics, I can't think of any domestic ideals Krauthammer has expressed that might qualify.
|
|
| 1753 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 23:08
|
K is no doubt a neocon, and neocons are pro-big government at all scales. They have to be veeeery careful about expressing that these days.
|
|
| 1754 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 23:38
|
Well I don't necessarily recall him supporting a big government domestic agenda in the past but in any case I'm really not interested in a debate about whether or to what extent there is an overreaching neoconservative domestic policy ideal.
|
|
| 1755 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427 Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 23:38
|
We … accepted the New Deal in principle...
In his1983 Reflections of a Neoconservative, he had written that “a conservative welfare state … is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective.” - Irving Kristal, a father of the neocons tho after Strauss and Trosky.
Harvard professor Daniel Bell, one of Kristol’s close friends and neocon colleagues, famously described himself as “a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.”
Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion...a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos...a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation...agrees with me on euthanasia surprisingly...
|
|
| 1756 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 17:36
|
George Will.
|
|
| 1757 | sarge33rd
ID: 291113511 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 12:19
|
The Appalling Hypocrisy of the Republican Party
To listen to Congressional Republicans tell it, you'd think the US's colossal budget and debt problem was caused by one simple thing: The Democrats.
And although the Republicans do deserve significant credit for finally focusing the country and Washington on the magnitude of the problem--really--their hypocrisy on this issue is almost unbearable.
|
|
| |
| 1759 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 16:46
|
that's a total share.
|
|
| 1760 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 17:54
|
Had to bury it into a tiny url because of the title!
|
|
| 1761 | sarge33rd
ID: 291113511 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 18:03
|
lmao
|
|
| 1762 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 19:43
|
Trump to 'moderate' Newsmax GOP debate
Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich gave his full backing to the Newsmax ION Television GOP debate today, saying that the Dec. 27 event will provide the last chance for voters to assess the candidates before primary season polling starts.
Standing alongside debate host Donald Trump, Gingrich said, “We have to be open to new ways of doing things and new ways of approaching things.”
Gingrich then praised Trump and Newsmax, adding, “I thought it was great when [Donald Trump] agreed to do it. I think it’s great that Newsmax is helping launch it.”
The invitations were sent out to the candidates on Friday. Trump has said he will endorse one of them sometime after the big event.
Considering that a Trump endorsement might be more of a negative than a positive, it would be a total shock if Trump endorsed anyone but Newt.
When real estate mogul Donald Trump welcomes former speaker Newt Gingrich to Trump Tower today, he will not only be welcoming another presidential candidate, but also a member of his exclusive golf club in Northern Virginia.
"I have a lot of respect for Newt," Trump said. "Newt's a member, so I love my members. I always love my members." link
Then there's this from the Washington Times:
So, you have to ask the question,
"What if they threw a GOP debate and nobody showed...except the member of the Donald's uber-expensive Virginia golf club?"
The answer is, of course, "Who cares."
|
|
| 1763 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 521125814 Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 15:25
|
I love SC politics.
The most amusing and ridiculious state in the nation. Look at the history - a virtual SNL script begging to happen. Strom. Joe Wilson. Linsday Graham. DeMint. Mark Sanford. Stars and Bars in front of the Capitol. It's the very model of dysfunction.
|
|
| 1764 | sarge33rd
ID: 10114586 Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 15:58
|
lmao, cant afford to hold their primaries, so they want to sell/lease naming rights? Like its a football stadium or sports event? Whats next, the TROJAN Elections of 2312?
|
|
| 1765 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 521125814 Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 16:05
|
And if it had happened, I seriously would have flirtied jumping to the GOP so I could've voted in "The Colbert Nation Super PAC Presidential Primary".
|
|
| |
| 1767 | sarge33rd
ID: 3411261412 Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 17:45
|
I know he has been mentioned here in passing, but Gary Johnson is probably the GOP candidate with the broadest appeal across the total geo-political spectrum. If he could just get heard.
|
|
| |
| 1769 | sarge33rd
ID: 3411261412 Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 23:58
|
Listen to Sen Tom Coburn (Rep), at about the 52 sec mark, as he speaks about spending reform.
"Some of my closest colleagues are some of the most liberal, uh I find them more intellectually honest often times..."
Think about that, I mean REALLY...t-h-i-n-k about that.
|
|
| |
| 1771 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Dec 19, 2011, 15:31
|
#1756: I just read that Will's wife is a paid staffer for Rick Perry. Dunno if this affect's Will's writing (after all, George Will and "conflict of interest" seem to go naturally together) but it is probably worth mentioning.
|
|
| 1772 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Dec 20, 2011, 15:47
|
House Tea Party revolts, rejects the compromise Senate bill regarding payroll tax cut extension.
Nice, fellas. Hope you have another job lined up after your House term ends...
|
|
| 1773 | Boldwin
ID: 321121173 Tue, Dec 20, 2011, 16:06
|
There were problems. It turned FM into a tax collector making it harder to eliminate if it gets to that. It would blow a hole in social security and it wasn't paid for until many years in the future.
Harry Reid is happy to kick the can down the road. Why shouldn't republicans be happy to? Senate republicans are calling for extended work sessions to work on it and Reid just wants to hit the slot machines back home.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| 1777 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 09:09
|
i have no idea how the average middle class person can believe the GOP has their best interests in heart. Time and time again, they make moves to take money out of pockets and to restrict our individual freedoms.
i truly believe it goes back to when LBJ said "We have lost the South..." after signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
|
|
| 1778 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 11:41
|
McConnell tosses the House GOP under the bus.
In fairness, it is the only play he has. The House GOP, led by the Tea Party, has again let "idealism" get in the way of "doing the right thing."
You kinda have to feel sorry for Boehner at this point.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1781 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 05:47
|
RE: 1774
The Whoppers of 2011 -- The year's worst political deceptions, from both sides. (FactCheck.org -- Posted on December 20, 2011)
...
Republicans aren’t proposing to “end” Medicare (and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden has signed onto a modified version of the GOP plan).
...
Democratic Whopper: Republicans Would ‘End Medicare’
First the truth: The budget plan that Republicans pushed through the House in 2011 would have radically changed Medicare in the future — for workers now under age 55. Starting in the year 2022, the GOP plan called for new Medicare beneficiaries to purchase private insurance with the help of federal subsidies.
But the plan would have continued the present Medicare system indefinitely for those now getting benefits, and also for all those who reach age 65 during the next decade.
But the truth didn’t stop Democrats from misrepresenting the proposal shamelessly to scare senior citizens and win election votes. They tested this tactic in a May 26 special House election in New York state, running ads accusing the Republican candidate of endorsing a plan that would “essentially end Medicare” and amount to “cutting benefits for seniors,” claims that were far from the truth.
It worked: Democrat Kathy Hochul won in a district that normally leans Republican. So the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee rolled out even more misleading robotic telephone calls in 13 other House districts to soften up the Republican incumbents for 2012. These calls claimed the GOP House members cast a “vote to end Medicare.”
One independent liberal group even posted a widely seen Internet video of a man pushing a white-haired woman in a wheelchair (apparently well over age 55) to the edge of a scenic cliff and dumping her over it. It ends by asking, “Is America Beautiful without Medicare?” That bogus claim is being satirized by our new sister site, “FlackCheck.org,” which found it to be among the “Worst of the Worst” of 2011.
The truth is that not all Democrats think that changing Medicare in the way Republicans proposed is tantamount to murdering grannie. In fact, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon joined Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on Dec. 14 to offer a bipartisan plan that is a modified version of the GOP plan Ryan authored earlier. And the New York Times noted Nov. 28 that there is growing support among some Democrats for reining in Medicare costs through a “premium support” system similar to the GOP plan if accompanied by enough safeguards.
But falsely claiming that any such change is an “end” to Medicare has already helped win one election for Democrats. So we suspect this whopper may be making our list again a year from now.
... The biggest Pinocchios of 2011 (The Fact Checker -- Washington Post -- Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 12/22/2011
...
Yes, there are always partisans who, day after day, accuse us of either being left-wing hacks or right-wing crazies. But there are also many people who, every day, write notes of thanks--for explaining a difficult subject, opening their eyes to a new idea or providing the facts to a claim that had confused them. Many Americans are asking for more information, not less, and we are happy to help fill the void.
Some people are always going to be partisan. That fine, but that’s not the role of a reporter. We value the many comments we have received from our readers, the words of encouragement and also the criticism. Every day, we seek to live up to your expectations of a true, impartial seeker of the truth.
In fact, there is this strange myth out there that fact checkers aspire to be “referees” and strain to achieve a balance between the two parties. Not so. At The Fact Checker, we take a holistic approach to every fact we check. After more than 30 years of writing about Washington institutions, we truly find there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of twisting the facts and being misleading when it suits their political purposes.
The main difference between the two parties seems to be that the right assumes the media is out to get them (i.e., see The Weekly Standard) and the left seems to take it as a personal affront when you call them out (see the reaction to PolitiFact.) Maybe Democrats really believe that tale about the left-wing media bias? In any case, this month’s ruckus about fact checkers simply affirms what we’ve learned in our long experience in Washington.
...
‘The GOP voted to kill Medicare’
We stand with our colleagues at Politifact and Factcheck.org on this one. As we noted at the time, “there’s certainly a worthwhile debate about whether the Medicare changes proposed by Ryan would help or hurt Medicare, and whether too much of a burden would be shifted to beneficiaries.” But that does not mean “killing” Medicare.
(Note: Some Democrats have pointed to a Wall Street Journal article as justification for the claim that the GOP would “end” Medicare, but that passage was referring to ending Medicare’s role in directly paying medical bills. The first paragraph of the article said Ryan’s plan would “transform the Medicare health program”--a phrasing that is not in dispute.)
...
|
|
| 1782 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 09:46
|
Agreed. Not killing. Strangling and leaving half dead in the middle of the highway. Not killing.
|
|
| 1783 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 10:44
|
I don't really get it. Replacing a publicly funded program with a private system with public subsidies isn't "essentially ending" the program?
And if the new system calls for senior citizens to pay for a greater portion of their healthcare costs when it begins in decade that isn't "cutting benefits for senior citizens"?
And to say they are those things is a "shameless representation"?
I think they're right to attack the granny over the cliff stuff and the described Robo-calls in 13 districts and any similar reckless exaggerations on the subject. But It sure seems to me like Dems in general drew a necessarily less hyperbolic line than that, but still got lumped right in with the over the cliff stuff by politifact.
Which doesnt seem right. Plenty of Republicans screamed about death panels in 2009. But the lie of the year was rightly attributed to Sarah Palin, not Republicans in general and not Republicans who expressed more measured concern without crossing the line.
|
|
| 1784 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 11:50
|
Politifact has really jumped the shark in their attempts to be politically correct on this. There is no question that Paul Ryan's proposal would change the very nature of that program--which would end under his proposal, no matter what you want to call it.
Trading your Ferrari in for a Chevy is fine. Just don't continue to call the Ferrari a Chevy, because your days of owning and operating one ended.
|
|
| 1785 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 12:04
|
A more accurate analogy would be trading your Chevy for a 70s-era two-stroke scooter with valve problems. And calling it a Prius.
|
|
| 1786 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 12:13
|
lol, thought almost exactly the same thing. Except I was going to go with an old Schwinn with pink streamers on the handlebars and a John Wockenfuss baseball card in the spokes.
|
|
| 1787 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 12:50
|
BTW, I pointed this out in 1774.
|
|
| 1788 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 12:53
|
i have now wandered away from this conversation in search of a good photo of Wockenfuss' absolutely insane batting stance.
|
|
| 1789 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 12:55
|
You're welcome.
It's just a small step from there conflating John Wockenfuss with Jim Walewander and then listening to an hour worth of Dead Milkmen music on Youtube or something, so be careful.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
|
|
| 1790 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Dec 23, 2011, 23:08
|
Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman and Perry all fail to get their names on VA GOP Primary ballot. Gingrich's place on ballot in question. The state GOP verified Friday that Romney and Paul turned in petitions with enough valid signatures, including 400 from each of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts, to get their names on the March 6 primary ballot.
Perry submitted 11,911 signatures to Virginia election officials Thursday, which means 2,000 or more signatures were deemed invalid. Gingrich had about 800 fewer signatures than Perry so there's no guarantee he would meet the 10,000-name threshold.
The rest of the field — former Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman — failed to file petitions by Thursday’s deadline and won't be on the ballot.
|
|
| 1791 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 01:04
|
Johm Boehner closes session and shuts down C-Span, ignoring questions from the assembled House.
...Rather than entertain a motion -- let alone discussion -- pertaining to the payroll tax cut championed by the President and pushed by Democrats, Boehner, ignoring the pleas of Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-Md.), adjourned the session, banging the gavel loudly as if to drown out Hoyer, and walked out of the chamber (see video).
And then he went one step further. According to The Raw Story, Rep. Boehner turned off the C-SPAN cameras. C-SPAN later confirmed that the Speaker has control over the House cameras.
|
|
| 1792 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 04:51
|
RE: 1783
Replacing a publicly funded program with a private system with public subsidies isn't "essentially ending" the program?
The program is still the same (not replaced), the funding was altered.
The doctors and services would still be paid under the Ryan plan, but from different funding sources.
As others have used analogies so shall I.
Chastity Bono underwent a radical change and transformation, and yet didn't die to become Chaz Bono. The hormones (funding) may be different and from another source, but the body is still alive.
-------------------------------------------------
As an aside...Entitlement Reform will creep louder and louder as the calendar years pass.
|
|
| 1793 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 08:48
|
Wilmer
Surely you agree it's a semantics argument at best. Whether changing a system which directly covers 80% of medical care costs to one which merely subsidizes some portion of private health insurance premiums is fundamental enough to say it "effectively ends" the program in your opinion or not, use of that phrase hardly seems worthy of being called the lie of the year by an outfit like politifact.
|
|
| 1794 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 10:46
|
The program is still the same (not replaced), the funding was altered.
The program remains the same for 55 and older, which is a program for seniors with guaranteeing benefits.
Under the Ryan plan, new people to the program would get coupons to get their care elsewhere and (get this): No benefits are guaranteed. None. No hospital, doctor, or insurance company is required to honor these vouchers.
So it goes from a program known to guarantee seniors health care, to one in which they get coupons to try to buy the care they want in a market in which not only no one is required to take them, but that no one will tell you what their prices are.
Call it whatever you want. It isn't Medicare.
|
|
| 1795 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 13:16
|
That lack of guarantee of services, is HUGE. There are service providrs put there, who when given the choice, wioll not accept government payment or government credit cards. When I was in the Army, and we would convoy from one locale to another, there were times when we had few enough vehicles involved that we were issued a govt gas credit card to refuel with. There were many stations, who would not accept the card, becaue payment was apparently seldom "timely". At the same time, there are many physicians who while they accept medicare they do NOT accept medicare allowed charges as their own. Even under the current system, the difference is at the patients behest to pay. Under the change proposed by Ryan, the patient could and would be turned away. Thus, ENDINGF Medicare as we know it.
Sometimes Wilmer, your Republican defense is spot on and well versed. This however, is not one of those times.
|
|
| 1796 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 17:25
|
What's the definition of an unconventional Republican presidential campaign?
If you're Herman Cain it means knowing all about a coming sexual harrassment and marital infidelity scandal weeks before it breaks and not bothering to do anything about it.
If you're Newt Gingrich it means mistaken confidence that you've qualified for the primary ballot in your home state and then shrugging it off with the promise of an extensive write-in campaign, sadly unaware that write-on's aren't allowed in the VA primary.
|
|
| 1797 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 17:33
|
If you're Newt Gingrich it means mistaken confidence that you've qualified for the primary ballot in your home state and then shrugging it off with the promise of an extensive write-in campaign, sadly unaware that write-on's aren't allowed in the VA primary.
LMAO! These ARE Happy Holidays!
|
|
| 1798 | Boldwin
ID: 321121173 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 19:13
|
As an aside...Entitlement Reform will creep louder and louder as the calendar years pass.
Jut in case, better make sure your relationships with the descendants and in-laws are rock solid, cause at a certain level of government insolvency, you my need to make other arrangements. And forget retiring. Keep earning.
|
|
| 1799 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 20:31
|
And forget retiring. Keep earning.
But wait to put some effort into getting out of this hole after Obama is gone
You seem confused.
|
|
| 1800 | Boldwin
ID: 58112185 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 21:56
|
I'm earning. I'm just not gambling on a new business venture until the wet blanket is gone.
|
|
| 1801 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 22:21
|
Stop blaming Obama for your own timidity.
|
|
| 1802 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Dec 24, 2011, 23:57
|
Gonna be 5 long years, old B. The economic collapse necessary to abridge that to early 2013 probably wouldn't do your outlook much good.
|
|
| 1803 | Boldwin
ID: 58112185 Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 10:35
|
Now is not the time to go out on a limb. Simplify your lives.
|
|
| 1804 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 14:00
|
Now is not the time to go out on a limb.
actually, now is the BEST time, because you're ahead of the curve.
but, it takes balls to do that, and so far, it appears you'd rather be emasculated by those you hate then man up and take charge.
|
|
| 1805 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 15:39
|
Reflections from an unconventional campaign manager: Newt and I have talked three or four times today and he stated that this is not catastrophic – we will continue to learn and grow. Remember that it was only a few months ago that pundits and the press declared us dead after the paid consultants left. They declared that the decision not to compete in the Ames Straw Poll would mean that Iowans would ignore us. Some will again state that this is fatal.
Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days – but in the end we will stand victorious.
|
|
| 1806 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 17:10
|
Making lemonade, sounds like. Hope he's thirsty, since he'll have a long time to enjoy it after getting knocked out after stupid mistakes.
Ron Paul picking up a lot of steam in Iowa. A good time to be the flavor-of-the-month.
|
|
| 1807 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Dec 25, 2011, 17:16
|
A Pearl Horbor analogy is some pretty sour lemonade.
|
|
| 1808 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 01:32
|
#1803: Absolutely. For nearly everyone, simplicity is far better. And as I've said before, the silver lining of this recession is that people have stopped living at about 110% of their means.
But what you can't do is congratulate yourself for your newfound simple lifestyle, while taking a swipe at Obama for forcing you into--a simple lifestyle.
That all said, for those with means this is a perfect time to invest. Interest rates are extremely low, small business taxes and costs are also very low, property prices are at levels we'll never see again in our lifetimes, potential employees are all over the place, etc etc.
|
|
| 1809 | Boldwin
ID: 321121173 Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 23:27
|
But what you can't do
Why not? Every other businessman I know of is doing it.
|
|
| 1810 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:01
|
Well, you can do it, if you want to be a massive selfish hypocrite.
|
|
| 1811 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:15
|
Heh. Reminds me of an exchange on one of those reality court shows (People's Court, or something). The judge asked the witness "Could you say that ...." and she looked at him and said "Sure you can say it. Wouldn't be right, but you can say it."
Boldwin, let me clarify: You can physically say whatever you want. But some things, when said, make you a hypocrite. You can't blame being in the wrong crowd for that.
|
|
| 1812 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:35
|
Every other businessman I know of is doing it.
Thus originating a new set of initials - BINO - Businessman In Name Only
|
|
| 1813 | Boldwin
ID: 321121173 Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 16:28
|
I've been self-employed my entire 36 year long married life. What do you find so 'in-name-only' about that?
If you are already in a depression and expecting an even deeper one as soon as the EU crashes and burns I can't imagine what would be hypocritical or in poor business judgement about keeping the tinder dry and the reserves stocked to the ceiling in preparation and not going out on a limb for the foreseeable future.
Why else do you think businesses are at an all-time high cash-on-hand position even when it's a buyer's market?
If PV wants to mortgage himself to the gills extending his business so-as to not 'take a swipe at Obama' and so-as to express faith in his great leader, knock yourself out, PV.
|
|
| |
| 1815 | Mith
ID: 1811472910 Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 13:16
|
Noonan Newt Gingrich in the end will likely prove to be a gift to Mitt Romney. He was a heavyweight. This isn't Herman Cain, this is a guy everyone on the ground in every primary state knows and has seen on TV and remembers from the past. But his emergence scared a lot of people—"Not him!'—and made some of them think, 'OK, I guess I better get off the sidelines and make a decision. Compared to Newt, Romney looks pretty reasonable."
Mr. Gingrich took some of the sting out of Romney-as-flip-flopper because he is a flip flopper too. He also, for a few weeks there, made Mr. Romney look like he might be over. He made Mr. Romney fight for it, not against an unknown businessman but against a serious political figure whose face and persona said: "I mean business." In the end it will turn out he was a gift to the Romney campaign, a foe big enough that when you beat him it means something.
*** The worst trend in politics that fully emerged during phase one? People running for president not to be president but as a branding exercise, to sell books and get a cable contract and be a public figure and have people who heretofore hadn't noticed you now stopping you in the airport to get a picture and an autograph. In an endeavor like this you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. You're not held back by any sense of realism as to your positions, you don't have to worry about them being used against you down the road because there won't be a down the road. You can say anything. And because you do you seem refreshing. People start to like you—you're not like all the others, who are so careful. You rise, run your mouth for a month and fall.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| 1819 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 14:49
|
And with Huntsman's withdrawl, the GOP's most widely appealing candidate is out of the race. With his exit, goes the GOPs best shot at taking the WH. (Whether the GOP cares to believe it or not.)
|
|
| 1820 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 17:58
|
Define widely.
|
|
| 1821 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 20:19
|
means you wouldnt like him
|
|
| 1822 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 11:57
|
|
|
| 1823 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 21:19
|
Says the guy who is forcing homosexuality down a religion's throat in another thread. No we do not like it.
|
|
| 1824 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 22:45
|
1) PD is forcing no such thing. 2) The laws of the land, are just that; laws which must be followed or the consequences for not following them, paid. 3) When exactly, are you going to argue with what was actually done/said, vs what you wish to argue against?
|
|
| 1825 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 10:25
|
The whole thing just points to the obvious fact that when you start opening yourself up to the real world, a church shouldn't be surprised when the real world comes in.
|
|
| 1826 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 11:18
|
This just goes to show that the liberal caterwauling about the wall of separation between church and state only goes one way.
A) They want a wall that keeps religion's influence on the culture neutered.
B) But by their lights there should be no wall keeping politicians hands off religion.
|
|
| 1827 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:12
|
As usual, you've got it pretty much backwards. The influence on culture is strong, ongoing, and (thank God) pretty much untouched by government's directing hands.
|
|
| 1828 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:23
|
As usual from Boldwin, 1826 is a completely stupid, trollish misrepresentation.
There's a wall, sure, but it's got a door in it. If you choose to keep your door shut, you can do basically whatever the hell you want to in there. When you (as a church or other organization) open the door and become public, though, you don't get to magically choose to keep it as a one-way portal and come out into the public without the public being able to come in.
|
|
| 1829 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:46
|
Seperation of Church and State, does NOT grant the religion, the right to practice activities in contyrast to the surrounding social law. IE, no religion in this nation, may claim the practice of adult on child sex, is a "religious experience" for the child and thus engage in pedophilia behind the guise of religious freedom.
The sooner you figure out the distinction B, between seperation and state DIRECTED; the sooner you will have a working grasp of the topic and then be able to enter into intelligent discourse. Until that time however, take your bib, colors and coloring book; and go sit in the corner, scribble and drool to your hearts content.
|
|
| 1830 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 12:58
|
I refuse to accept the state telling a religion, 'You will tolerate and accept remuneration for satanic acts performed on your property'.
Any religion with a backbone will go underground or divest themselves of their property, rather than become a party to that.
|
|
| 1831 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 13:08
|
Well, you can refuse all you want. You have an absolute right to be bullheadedly wrong.
As a member of the public, I refuse to let you go around flaunting public laws in public ways. And there are plenty of purely non-commercial, religious acts that I really don't give a rat's ass about you doing in private. That's where the separation is. If you don't like it? Find another public to be a part of.
|
|
| 1832 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 16:46
|
I refuse to accept the state telling a religion, 'You will tolerate and accept remuneration for satanic acts performed on your property'.
which is fine. and the state then can refuse to accept a religion's non-profit status, and revoke it.
you can't have your cake and eat it too. if you're going to get special privileges from the state, but are discriminatory in who uses your facilities, then you should lose those special privileges.
but if you want those privileges, don't discriminate.
p.s. nice job there with the crazy. "gay marriage" = "satanic acts".
|
|
| |
| 1834 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:52
|
If boldwin understood the case better, he would understand that it has nothing to do with owning property.
|
|
| 1835 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 11:31
|
I think at this point things would be better served if everyone through in the towel, I mean how much money is going to be wasted on this election is already decided and if is not then it will be because of the number of adds ran.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1838 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:01
|
Darrell Issa, no friend of Obama's, seems to get it. The others seem to be looking for reasons to justify their pique of the President.
|
|
| 1839 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 22:06
|
Indeed. I too found Issa's posture, to be refreshing. He even hinted back to the "no child left behind", being a GOP initiative.
I also read today, that TX has a law allowing the State to take the DL of anyone under the age of 18, who hasnt graduated and isnt attending classes. Seems to me, right in line with what the Pres was talking about.
|
|
| 1840 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 23:03
|
ditto. this is one of those things that seems to be "well, Obama is for it. we gotta be against it!"
good for Issa to think for himself.
|
|
| |
| 1842 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 16:52
|
3 weeks ago (roughly), Newt drew what? 5% of the vote in polls? Then a $5,000,000 donation, an dhe wins SC. ANother $5,000,000 donation form the spouse of the original $5,000,000 and he's in a dead heat for FL?
Yeah SCOTUS, thanks for nothing with that decision.
|
|
| 1843 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 16:57
|
I am not sure what that 5million got him since I have not seen a single TV commercial supporting him but 1000's for Romney.
|
|
| 1844 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Thu, Jan 26, 2012, 18:05
|
It (from the polls), got his share of the primary voter multiplied by a factor of approx 7.
|
|
| 1845 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 09:50
|
nice miss use of causation and correlation there sarge.
|
|
| 1846 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 12:56
|
yeah, you say that, since you disagree with it.
|
|
| 1847 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 13:13
|
I tend to agree with Boikin. The attacks on the media (and John King's failure to defend what was a perfectly appropriate question) gave SC voters something to cheer about and I think the Bain Capital stuff resonated there as well.
Incidentally, Gingrich pulled out his 'attack the moderator' schtick again in last night's debate, when Blitzer asked Gingrich if he is satisfied by Romney's release of his tax records. While there was some applause, he didn't pull it of nearly as well, largely because it the question wasn't personal in nature and also because Blitzer was quick to defend the question.
Also last night's debate (the 19th of this political season) was both the most entertaining and the most discouraging one so far. Two hours of simian mudslinging with shameless disregard for accuracy in their accusations. After the first 10 or 15 minutes were taken up by Romney and Gingrich bludgeoning one another, Santorum dressed both of them down. Only a short time later Santorum had tossed composure aside with angry liberal exaggerations of Romney's MA healthcare system. Paul was the only adult on the panel (which was an easy role o play since the other candidate pretty much ignored him anyway). Unfortunately for him he lacks the natural charisma to capitalize on such a situation.
Anyway, after a primary battle like this, especially since it will likely drag on, the lengths they're taking to win this nomination are going to make it a relatively easy general election season for President Obama. I have to wonder at this point how much all this will sour voters on the greater GOP, impacting congressional and gubernatorial races as well.
|
|
| 1848 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 13:19
|
I think Santorum's comparisons of Romney's health care plan and Obama's were actually pretty close to the truth, except for his description of people preferring to pay a penalty rather than be insured. The free-rider thing doesn't make mathematical sense, since the percentage of people being insured went way up after the law was passed.
Santorum, of course, was going after Romney for falsely claiming that the Massachusetts law is nothing like the Affordable Care Act.
|
|
| 1849 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 13:29
|
I have to wonder at this point how much all this will sour voters on the greater GOP, impacting congressional and gubernatorial races as well.
Precisely the point I take away, from Bob Doles letter of endorsement for Romney and his comments re Gingrich.
|
|
| 1850 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 13:35
|
The free rider point was the exaggeration he kept returning to. That and statements like the one in which he declared there are 13 similar provisions, such as covering pre-existing conditions, which he said proves they are the same. And it was just so ugly, both of them red-faced and bristling through the exchange. Paul wasted his best opportunity of the night when Blitzer asked him who was right. He started off strong, saying they were both wrong but then lost his footing and stuttered into poorly delivering one of his generic campaign lines.
|
|
| 1851 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, Jan 28, 2012, 00:38
|
Obama beats Newt 416 to 122 .
That's why the "establishment" (i.e. non-crazy Republicans) are full-court pressing Gingrich. They know nominating him is just not even trying.
|
|
| 1852 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Sun, Jan 29, 2012, 18:37
|
LESS Government????? Isnt the GOP claim?
Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich called Sunday for a commission to study the ethical issues relating to in vitro fertilization clinics, where infertile women receive treatment to get pregnant and large numbers of embryos are created.
"If you have in vitro fertilization you are creating life. And therefore we should look seriously at what should the rules be for clinics that do that because they're creating life," said Gingrich, who opposes abortion and says life begins at conception.
|
|
| 1853 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Jan 29, 2012, 18:51
|
It is his newly-found Catholicism. The Catholic Church has always questioned the need for fertilizing far more eggs than necessary for the procedure.
|
|
| 1854 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 23:02
|
the pandering GOP wants to eliminate State Inc Tax
Nine states already get by without an income tax, mostly by tapping other sources of revenue. Nevada and Florida rely on sales taxes that target the tourism industry. Alaska has taxes on natural resources, and Texas imposes substantial property taxes. The other five states are: New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming.
Unmentioned, is the TX propensity for phoney ass traffic violation citations to generate localized revenue. (Go ahead and plead not guilty and fight it. Who do you think the local magistrate is gonna believe? You, or his beer buddy, the only cop in town?) Or that S Dakota makes its revenue from gambling taxes (dogs and used to be horses).
|
|
| 1855 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 04:50
|
I see S. Dakota has no state income tax. I wonder if the Bakken dips that far south. I bet it does.
|
|
| |
| 1857 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 05:15
|

Baby Bakken?
|
|
| 1858 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 08:53
|
We don't have an income tax. It's really swell. We get our revenue off the backs of the working poor, then make sure not to educate their kids, so we can tax them too.
The state won't even grant cities their own taxing authority to make up for when the state drops the ball. Many schools are now relying on hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by their PTAs annually to pay teacher's salaries. Of course that's the rich schools. The poor schools just do with out, and provide a jolly-poor education... so we can get our taxes off the backs of the poor's kids.
We make especially sure not to teach math (ever heard of Every Day Math? Ugh...), otherwise we might figure it out one of these generations...
|
|
| 1859 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 10:27
|
Yeah, Washington, the state that hates poor people.
*roll*
|
|
| 1860 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 12:23
|
What the heck do you know about it?
|
|
| 1861 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 12:29
|
1855-1857, a rather piss poor attempt at deflection.
S Dak gets its revenue (or at least did for MANY years) from Atokad Race Park. (Horse track) Those revenues, are why SD has no income tax and hasnt had an income tax as long as I can remember. (Pretty sure, my freshman year in HS talking BUsiness Law, is when I "learned" that SD had no income tax. We debated then, why start a plant in Sioux City, IA where the workers/owners would have to pay 10-15% income tax, when 3 miles away you could shelter 100% of your income from taxation.)
|
|
| 1862 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 15:57
|
What the heck do you know about it?
I know that there are so many liberals there it would detract from the scenery for me if I moved there.
I'll grant you that since liberals don't care if their schemes actually help poor people in the real world they don't genuinely care about anything but their self-image as caring people.
Patty Murray
|
|
| 1863 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 16:19
|
Boldwin,
Why do you feel the need to make wild sweeping generalizations about people that you disagree with, while managing to completely misrepresent those positions in the first place?
|
|
| 1864 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 17:08
|
I guess I'm not quite as bigoted as you. I rather enjoyed sharing Brooklyn heights with the witnesses. I keep thinking you must be joking when you say things like that, then you go ahead and earnestly say something even more ultra-radical and scary. At this point I thInk, for the good of the nation, we need to marginalize the hateful thoughts coming from the ultra right as soon as possible. Fortunately you are doing it for us.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
|
|
| 1865 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 17:14
|
Bili
What I find particularly annoying is liberals fleeing the mess they made of California and not learning a thing from the experience as they recreate the problems in Washington.
|
|
| |
| 1867 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 17:26
|
Boldwin,
What I find particularly annoying, is Republicans denying the mess they made of things with a Rep WH, Senate and House. And now, with recovery beginning to happen, they want to do it all again.
|
|
| 1868 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 17:26
|
No, the dysfunction is in legislators seeing no connection between what the state takes in and what they have to put in the goody bag.
|
|
| 1869 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 17:29
|
Replace "legislators" with "9578324786 stupid referendums, from both sides of the political spectrum" and you have a much better handle on California. That would be too simple though.
Besides, didn't they have a Republican governor during most of that time? What was his name, again, Arnold Somethingorother. Let's just blame it all on him, that'd make about as much sense.
|
|
| |
| 1871 | Tree
ID: 130353119 Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 20:41
|
I know that there are so many liberals...
I'll grant you that since liberals don't care...
What I find particularly annoying is liberals...
it's really easy to play the blame game, and really ignorant to think it's as simple as that.
it honestly shows a lack of a grasp of how even some of the simplest things work. it's a cop-out and a convenient excuse for those who don't really have a better way.
|
|
| 1872 | Tree
ID: 812116 Wed, Feb 01, 2012, 17:09
|
and now, some members of the American right continue their whittling away of the First Amendment.
'Gasland' Journalists Arrested At Hearing By Order Of House Republicans
In a stunning break with First Amendment policy, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice...
...Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost, “I have served in the House of Representatives since 1992, and I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In all that time, I cannot recall a chair of any committee or subcommittee having ever ordered the removal of a person who was filming a committee proceeding and not being disruptive, whether or not that person was accredited. It is a matter of routine that all sorts of people photograph and record our proceedings. Most of them are not accredited. I cannot recall anyone questioning their right to be there."
|
|
| |
| 1874 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 18:15
|
lmao, and of course because they say so, that makes it so. Whats next? They gonna pass a resolution stating GWB got more popular votes than Gore?
|
|
| 1875 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 23:15
|
Here is an argument BOTH, for capping the taxable rate (sake of argument, say 45%) AND doing away with the favorable treatment of unearned income. (Capital gains)
Tax Rate of 102% of taxable income
WHY, is this wealthy man penalized for EARNING income, while his peers invest and walk "easy street"?
|
|
| 1876 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 00:40
|
Hmm. Doesn't make sense. Sounds like he needs to fire his accountant.
|
|
| 1877 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 07:02
|
Well, it was only 20% of his adjusted gross.
He just had a buttload of deductions, so his taxable income was small, relative to his actual earned income.
|
|
| 1878 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 17:44
|
|
|
| 1879 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 19:27
|
The article intermixes income, gross income, adjusted gross income while at the same time doing a poor job, IMO, of keeping tax rates comparable. It intermixes Federal tax rates with state and local to make exagerrated points. They are good points, but the confusing caused by mixing all of the rates and incomes dilutes the point, rather than help make the point. New York has high taxes, ok. That has no bearing on the Federal Income tax rate debates.
Some of the other reasons for his high tax rates seem interesting. It sounds like he has all of his real estate business transactions in his name, not in a company. While it might seem like a small point, tax and expenses are calculated differently for people vs corporations.
|
|
| 1880 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 08:40
|
HorsesAss
|
|
| 1881 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 12:04
|
Ha! "How exactly did you get elected?"
|
|
| 1882 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 13:16
|
egads......words, totally escape me.
|
|
| 1883 | Tree
ID: 27130712 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 13:32
|
adding the humor is that it's not even a new article. at this point, it's nearly a year old.
|
|
| 1884 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 18:32
|
It took a while to make the rounds in e-mails till it got to him.
|
|
| 1885 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 19:08
|
ummm, no. The Onion reprinted the article, with the recent spat between Susan G Komen and PP.
|
|
| |
| 1887 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 00:33
|
the more true Republicans i talk to, the more upset they are with the direction of their party. they honestly feel as if the GOP didn't even try this election, and even some of the most staunch Conservatives have been "are you kidding me!?!?" about the steady influx of subpar candidates the GOP has put up there to run for president.
|
|
| 1888 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 12:05
|
true Republicans
How do you define that?
|
|
| 1889 | Tree
ID: 421201111 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 12:29
|
true Republicans
How do you define that?
fair enough question, as it's entire subjective opinion in this case - my own - but based on my friends who lean to the right.
bottom line in a nutshell, is that imho, true republicans are more center-right, than far right. more keen on state's rights, more conservative spending habits, less government-sponsored welfare and more personal accountability, not so keen on unions, strong nation defense (and until Bush the Second, a general belief to stay out of the business of other countries), and so on.
the party now seems to kowtow the far radical right, under some impression that's going to be a net gain, whereas it certainly seems like it will be a net loss.
but, again, that's all my definition, since that's what you asked for.
|
|
| 1890 | Mith
ID: 50151411 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 13:42
|
I think the biggest problem with the current GOP is it's fundamentalist hatred for comprise. It's a predictable result of decades of bugaboo-propping and fear-mongering where every last liberal proposal and ideal is slandered as some base embodiment of evil, including even ideas adopted by Democrats after they were hatched by Republicans and touted as conservative in nature (end of life care, health insurance mandates, etc.).
The fundamentalism eventually manifests itself inherently in the sense that only a particular line of thinking can represent the party's bona fides and that everyone in the party who doesn't fall in line is an infidel.
But purism contradicts the concept of a national political party. By nature its explicit agenda to establish a platform that will attract and represent as many Americans as possible and then effect it. The only way it can have the influence it desires and is designed to carry is to invite an assortment of opinions.
I suspect that's what you're getting at by saying true Republicans are moderates. But with something as necessarily broad as a national political party in a country as big and diverse as the USA, once you establish exclusionary bona-fides like "true Republican" you disenfranchise large portions of the group (be they economic moderates or social conservatives or whatever).
It's funny that the anti-socialist party is the one that's so much more obsessed with a thing like party identity, since by nature a national political party in the USA is a collectivist entity. As noted many times here (and to their credit) Democrats don't even have an equivolent term for RINO.
|
|
| 1891 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 15:52
|
re 1886 and the Poll results...I am curious Boldwin, how it feels finding that the only horse in your stable with a shot at winning the race; you wouldnt put in the starting gate on a bet.
|
|
| 1892 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 16:23
|
I think the biggest problem with the current GOP is it's fundamentalist hatred for comprise.
which is something i've said in numerous posts on this board.
I suspect that's what you're getting at by saying true Republicans are moderates. But with something as necessarily broad as a national political party in a country as big and diverse as the USA, once you establish exclusionary bona-fides like "true Republican" you disenfranchise large portions of the group (be they economic moderates or social conservatives or whatever).
fair enough. bottom line to me is that when the crackpot far right is referred to as the "base", the GOP is making a mistake. perhaps a (relatively) fatal one.
|
|
| 1893 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 00:09
|
National GOP can't help themselves, go all-in on birth control non-coverage.
Someone needs to sit these guys down. Just because they perceive Obama as being weak on this issue (he isn't) and it involves the Affordable Care Act, they want to turn it up to 11.
This is going to bite them in the ass just as soon as they get home.
|
|
| 1894 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 00:11
|
Yep, THAT idea, is a time bomb just looking for a place to detonate.
|
|
| 1895 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 00:42
|
Mitch McConnell in that link:
“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”
Then I will look Mitch, for the GOP introduction of legislation to allow polygamy for Muslims; since that is keeping with THEIR religious freedom.
|
|
| 1896 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 00:50
|
They certainly want to make this about "freedom of religion" but this won't really fly very far--all the things they are complaining about are already in the law, has been the law for some time (for some states, many years) and this is a thing that most people actually agree with.
I don't doubt that they will gin up those who are easily led. But this is an issue which will crush them.
There are far, far better ways to attack Obama than to take him on for doing what people want him to do, and something which has been ongoing (without GOP outcry) for years.
|
|
| 1897 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 01:01
|
BTW, the compromise proposed by Obama on this specific issue was the GOP's idea. In 2001.
Like most of the Affordable Care Act, the policies spring from ideas first put forth by Republican politicians, think tanks, and policy papers. But when actually brought into law by a Democratic President...
|
|
| 1898 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 01:01
|
28 states have such a requirement, and Texas; that well known bastion of liberal socialism; is amongst them.
pdf file
|
|
| 1899 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 01:06
|
Which only goes to show you that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate.
|
|
| 1900 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 01:06
|
ON a tangent PD, that same source (Guttmacher) has a paper on the cost of contraceptive coverage. They determine that such coverage does not raise premiums and can save money by avoiding the costs associated with an unwanted pregnancy.
link
|
|
| 1901 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 10:09
|
Surely insurance companies won't mind being forced to supply me with a NordicTrack, daily Seattle Sutton meals, vitamins, I mean they'd only save money in the longrun.
|
|
| 1902 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 10:37
|
Surely.
|
|
| 1903 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 13:06
|
1901...Monday morning, and you are already constructing strawmen. How many this week B? What's the magic nr, after which you will speak on point vs off tangent?
|
|
| 1904 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 20:05
|
Hey, if you can make the claim it saves a company money, apparently it's constitutional for the government to order private companies to give away freebies. Who knew? How is this off topic?
|
|
| 1905 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 20:42
|
Insurance companies already require a lot of things of companies, doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, and patients. The weak link in our entire health care system has always been the fact that the insurance that pays for it are handled by for-profit companies.
I, for one, don't put anything past the insurance companies. And we're only in this mess because of the insistence on the Right that even the small step of making insurance mandatory was a half-step too far.
It would have been far, far better for the actual people to have single payer. But there you go. Don't be whining because you insist on a system which screws you over.
|
|
| 1906 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 23:20
|
Well B, show us where having the nordic trac will prevent you becoming pregnant,. but that you may become pregnant w/o one; and I'm sure we could arrange for you to get a free nordic track.
|
|
| 1907 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 09:44
|
But where do we draw the line between of what is covered? Are we going to start legislating everything that would save companies money in the long-run? We do this in some areas already, seat belts and airbags are an example. But I don't know of anyone who has a moral issue with seatbelts.
Alcohol can have beneficial health effects when small amounts are consumed daily. Are we going to pass legislation that requires everyone to drink 1 glass everyday? Or for a better analogy, reimburse daily alcohol purchases?
I do think the GOP is protesting this mainly because it was proposed by Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an intrusion by the government into its citizen's moral beliefs.
|
|
| 1908 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 10:16
|
I, for one, don't think there is any intrusion really. Certainly not a new one.
I'm certain the GOP will frame the issue in that way, however (just as they like to frame Spanish-language forms as being a slippery slope to local governments having to publish in every language in the world).
What's happened is that the Administration has taken what is already the law, and made it less intrusive for religious employers.
|
|
| 1909 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 12:06
|
with the same law already in affect Frick, in 28 states; I dont see how anyone CAN legiimately frame it as intrusion by the govt. Doesnt mean the GOP wont try, but I think they lose and lose big in doing so.
|
|
| 1910 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 12:10
|
TINSTAAFL
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Insurance companies are going to pass the cost back to their customers, it just won't be a explicit line item. I could be wrong, but I don't see the church supporting that. It also doesn't address how some organizations are self-insured, so they would be paying for it directly, which is not going to happen.
I see this going to the Supreme Court fairly quickly. If the Supreme Court upholds it, then I predict that the employers will drop health insurance coverage rather than comply. Employers are not required to offer health insurance coverage, so I really don't get the purpose of this law, other then to attack a fairly specific group.
Actually, I could see some of the organizations continuing to offer health insurance and then refusing to pay the fines that are associated with not complying. Does anyone know what the penalties are for not complying?
Reading some more about the current law and rationale, Title XII. Employers can't discriminate on sex. This article talks about how Viagra is covered, but not birth control. That isn't quite the same and again, I'm curious how a court would rule. Viagra does not stop pregnancy, so to the church isn't immoral. Most organizations that don't cover birth control also don't cover vasectomies for the same religious reasons. They do however, cover birth control if it is for a medical reason, besides preventing pregnancy.
|
|
| 1911 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 12:11
|
Before the compromise it certainly was. Remember that the workaround for the Church was to self-insure (which exempted them from those state laws--every one). The federal law, however, put that coverage back into play.
|
|
| |
| 1913 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 15:51
|
What's happened is that the Administration has taken what is already the law, and made it less intrusive for religious employers. - PD
Because somehow the legislature had passed a law the every employer had to pay for abortions if they offered insurance?
This is Obama over-reaching with his own executive branch orders, not laws.
|
|
| 1914 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 15:55
|
No--the law regarding secular employers did not change. The compromise, however, allowed church based employers the opportunity to opt out.
This isn't hard stuff.
|
|
| 1915 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 15:58
|
Religions had never been required to pay for abortion and contraceptives in any law I am aware of. Obama just made up a rule in the executive branch.
|
|
| 1916 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:02
|
Which never forced any change onto the churches themselves.
I'm not sure if you are confused or not--though you seem comfortable in a misunderstanding which confirms your biases.
The Affordable Care Act exempted churches, and their direct employees, from having to cover contraception with which they had a religious objection. The HHS letter was about employers associated with churches (hospitals, schools, etc), and whether the law which covered regular employers who provided health insurance also required them to do so. There was never any requirement that the Church provide the pill to nuns.
|
|
| 1917 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:27
|
Remember Obama promising that law would never force ANYONE to pay for abortion? Bart Stupak? Ever heard of him and the last 'compromise' Obama offered?
So how could it be the law that Catholics must pay for 'ella' abortifacients for their 'quasi-religious institution employees? If it wasn't supposed to be in there for ANYONE?
|
|
| 1918 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 17:02
|
I suppose, then, that the fact of what the law says and how it is applied just slipped by you, until your conservative media overlords goaded you into getting upset about the meme-of-the-day.
Sorry, but I simply can't answer as to why you missed it previously. I'll only point out that those you read and hear from the Right have financial interests in keeping you upset.
|
|
| 1919 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 17:16
|
LOL! Amazing. It says whatever you want it to say whenever you need to pivot. When you talk to Stupak nothing could be further from the truth. When you talk to religious people now it was always in there.
|
|
| 1920 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 22:30
|
from the link in 1898, Illinois has this law, and has the same opt out as the President has put fwd. IOW B, ZERO change, NONE...from existing law.
So, just what are you up in arms for?
|
|
| 1921 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 23:34
|
VA GOP
The ultrasound legislation would constitute an unprecedented government mandate to insert vag--inal ultrasonic probes into women as part of a state-ordered effort to dissuade them from terminating pregnancies, legislative opponents noted.(with apologies, the double hyphenated word had to be so done, to get past the auto censor. It is otherwise a cut/paste quote from the article)
And the GOP dares to claim that Obama's health care ideas are intrusive?
|
|
| 1922 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 02:21
|
Look your baby in the eye before you murder her.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1925 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 06:14
|
Yeah, if a republican spoke of 'those chimichanga eaters' that wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I guess if a democrat says it that context makes racism impossible in your eyes.
|
|
| 1926 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 08:50
|
I think we all agree that the political correctness and fake outrage need to stop. On both sides. Boldwin raises a good point, if a Romney or Newt campaign manager had made the quote, there would have been a news frenzy. Both sides do it and neither side, IMO, really cares about the issue, other than making the opposite side look bad.
|
|
| 1927 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:17
|
I suppose, though it should be noted, I think, that no one said "chimichanga eaters"--even the original source of the quote.
Part of the problem isn't the speculation that Newt or Romney would have been attacked for doing the same thing. It is that the assumption is that they would so the Right has been acting with presumptive outrage. A kind of ongoing defensiveness which presumes that since the other side will be unreasonable that they need not be reasonable themselves.
|
|
| 1928 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:50
|
Boldwin raises a good point, if a Romney or Newt campaign manager had made the quote, there would have been a news frenzy.
Frick, Messina didn't make any quote. I suggest you go back and read Millbank's column.
And I also know Boldwin didn't read it, since it was a pain to dig up, and objective research hasn't been part of Boldwin's game for a long time.
|
|
| 1929 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 13:11
|
Actually I didn't read your link. I had already read all about the story.
|
|
| 1930 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 13:12
|
And you may have stepped up your game more than anyone else on the left, but you still don't read half as much as I do.
|
|
| 1931 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 13:24
|
But reading more of the same stuff isn't, in fact, better. Or even desirable.
Would I be a better poster if I read twice as much progressive writing, for example?
|
|
| 1932 | Tree
ID: 25171613 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 14:11
|
but you still don't read half as much as I do.
- reading the same book over and over doesn't really mean you read more.
Actually I didn't read your link. I had already read all about the story.
ignorance, for you, i suppose, is bliss.
|
|
| 1933 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 14:49
|
PD
I watch youtube interviews of the principle parties we talk about and hear them flesh out their ideas. I study the philosophers who underpin the big ideas swirling around today. I read top lawyers explaining the legal issues of the day.
I spent 5 hours yesterday reading physics papers at PhysOrg. Two hours sorting thru remixes to find the best versions of music. One hour looking at the most elegant living things on the planet which just happen to have the latin word elagans in their official names. I have a wide set of interests.
I read every minute of the day like my life depended on it because I would very likely die of boredom if I didn't.
You have this idea I have my ideas handed to me from this narrow robot pipeline. Which is just projection from your talkingpointsmemo slavery.
|
|
| 1934 | Tree
ID: 191411422 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 15:01
|
Wow. And you blame others for your inability to get a job/make money? I wish I had that much free time in a day, but I work for a living.
|
|
| 1935 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 15:21
|
#1933: I have this idea that you already know how you think, and only post stuff on this board (some of it highly questionable) which backs up your already-held beliefs.
I have this idea that you haven't changed your opinion on anything on this board worth mentioning for many years. Which leads to the question of "Why do you bother reading at all?" (boredom, looks like) and "Reading widely isn't reflected in your actual opinions." Which makes me think you intentionally decline to enlarge and (yes) correct your mistakes by virtue of experiencing the words of others.
In other words, crowing about reading widely because of boredom, on these boards, reflects a lost opportunity. Hardly something to pat yourself on the back about.
|
|
| 1936 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 15:27
|
Everything can be refined.
|
|
| 1937 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 15:46
|
Boehener says this is economic relief, not jobs
As if, that were a bad thing?
"Let's face it, this is an economic relief package, not a bill that is going to grow the economy and create jobs," Boehner said.
Boehner's comment underscored the GOP's desire to limit Obama's ability to declare victory over the legislation. The fight over the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits has been waged since late last year and has taken a political toll on Republicans.
|
|
| 1938 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 15:49
|
Sounds like the words of a legislator who lost and is trying to salvage some pride.
|
|
| 1939 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 21:27
|
The terrorist, have won:
NYPD infiltrated, without probable cause, multiple college Muslim Student groups
In one report, an undercover officer describes accompanying 18 Muslim students from the City College of New York on a whitewater rafting trip in upstate New York on April 21, 2008. The officer noted the names of attendees who were officers of the Muslim Student Association.
"In addition to the regularly scheduled events (Rafting), the group prayed at least four times a day, and much of the conversation was spent discussing Islam and was religious in nature," the report says.
Praying five times a day is one of the core traditions of Islam.
Gee, on a religious outing, these folks followed the tenants of their religion, AND discussed those beliefs. Who'd have thunk?
|
|
| 1940 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 17:46
|
5 stupid comments on the same day.
Granted--it was CPAC. The flypaper strategy of getting conservatives into one place. But still...
|
|
| |
| 1942 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 14:19
|
Rep primary about to get "messy"
In a sign of growing desperation, a prominent Republican senator told ABC News recently that if Romney loses Michigan, the party should try to entice a new candidate into the race.
"We'd get killed," the unnamed senator replied when asked how Romney would then fare against Obama. "He'd be too damaged, if he can't even win in Michigan, where his family is from, where he grew up."
What about Santorum, a former US senator from Pennsylvania?
"He'd lose 35 states," the senator said, predicting the same fate for former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
Must be tough, to be GOP right now.
|
|
| 1943 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 14:51
|
Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne, calls Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that promotes gay lifestyles and abortion.
http://journalgazette.net/article/20120220/NEWS07/120229974
I apologize, I can't get the create link button to work.
|
|
| |
| 1945 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 18:53
|
When you've got lesbian local scout leaders, you've been radicalized.
How can you deny that?
Something the Boy Scouts have resisted so far.
|
|
| 1946 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 18:56
|
Lesbian, does not mean pedophilia. Nor does homosexual, mean pedophilia. Nor does heterosel PRECLUDE pedophilia.
One day B, God will stand in judgement and shake his head in wonder. Asking you, how you could try SO hard, yet fail so completely, to comprehend His message.
|
|
| 1947 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 19:03
|
It's radical enuff to call down fire from heaven on.
|
|
| 1948 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 19:27
|
There have always been gay scout leaders. The problem now is the far right wants all gays back into the closet.
|
|
| 1949 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 20:17
|
"When you've got lesbian local scout leaders, you've been radicalized.
How can you deny that?"
Because it's wrong. Totally, disgustingly, pathetically wrong.
|
|
| 1950 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 21:06
|
I would have taken a dozen lesbians leading my scout troop over the good ol' boy, heterosexual, piece of sh*t, momma murdering prick I ended up with.
|
|
| 1951 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 22:05
|
I know R Paul has downplayed the angle; but does anyone else here think the GOPs best shot at the WH; is a Romney/Paul ticket?
I'm thinkin Obama-v-Romney; 47% Obama, 40% Romney. 9% gets split between Paul and G Johnson, with 4% being all others. (Socialist, Green, etc etc etc)
Obama-v-Santorum; Obama 50%, Santorum 37%, all else approx trhe same.
BUT: Obama-v-Romney/Paul......could be really, really interesting.
|
|
| 1952 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 22:29
|
Re: 1947
I think you actually believe that happened. What's worse is that a disturbingly large portion of our population agrees with you.
|
|
| 1953 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 23:03
|
"Unemployment is down, confidence is up, DOW 5,000 above Bush - or as Republicans put it, let's talk about gay people and abortion!" - Bill Maher, in a Tweet sent today.
|
|
| |
| 1955 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 11:55
|
ridicule doom trans-vag*nal ultrasound bill
Once the word "transva*nal" became a big joke on "Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," it wasn't long before Virginia's conservative Republicans realized they had overreached on abortion.
|
|
| 1956 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 13:06
|
Todays GOP, has sklid SO far to the right, it is almost unrecognizable I think to a conservative of the 60s.
I offer, the following 3 links. 2 on Pres Nixon and 1 on Pres Reagan.
Nixon
I doubt anyone thinks of Richard Nixon as a liberal. I know I don’t. However, the United States has shifted so far to the right today that many of the actions taken by staunch conservatives a few decades ago appear liberal by today’s standards. And, that is the point of this post. Many of today’s conservatives, especially the neocon right wing nut jobs, but even today’s relative moderates think that today’s definition of conservative is the same as it ever was.
This is not the case. This nation has shifted so far to the right that we can’t even see the center anymore.
Nixon 2
While in a particularly expansive mood one day, Richard Nixon’s Senate floor leader, the very Liberal Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, boasted to a reporter: "We [Liberals] get the action and the Conservatives get the rhetoric."[1] This yeasty admission of the Nixon Administration’s Liberalism in action doubtless would have come as a distinct shock to most of the 32 million citizens who voted for Richard Milhous Nixon for President of the United States in 1968.
Reagan
Most of his conservative biographers espouse a Manichaean worldview in which Reagan's constancy in the face of liberal evils is the key to his greatness. But to sustain such an argument requires more than simply touting (and often exaggerating) his achievements, considerable though some of them were. The effort to gild Reagan's legacy also seems to demand that any accomplishment that didn't explicitly advance conservative goals be ex-punged from his record. And so they have been.
Oh I know the political winds blow and perspectives change. But I doubt all that many on the right (not just from this forum but from my personal life contacts as well), are intellectually prepared to realize just how far to the right, they have been moved. I say been moved, because I think that most consider themselves yet to be objective despite their irrationally held views of Obama for ex, as a leftwing extremist. (He is in point of fact, MUCH closer to a centrist, than even many leftwingers want him to be.)
|
|
| 1957 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 14:40
|
I think what is missed on those links is the idea of how far left the country was before the 80's, but you are right Obama is not leftwing extremist at least not in practice.
|
|
| 1958 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 14:40
|
I think what is missed on those links is the idea of how far left the country was before the 80's, but you are right Obama is not leftwing extremist at least not in practice.
|
|
| 1959 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 14:58
|
#1958: I agree in part. I think the Democratic Party (rather the whole country) went far left in the 70's (which is how Reagan was able to come in, as a center-right candidate).
|
|
| 1960 | Tree
ID: 441112414 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 15:24
|
Really?" comic Amy Poehler sneered in noting the Virgini@ bill on "SNL." ''Don't get me wrong, Transv@ginal is my favorite airline. I have so many miles on Transv@ginal that they upgrade me to ladybusiness."
Stewart wisecracked that "Transv@ginal Ultrasound" was the name of a jazz fusion band he once saw in concert.
those had me in stitches.
and then, a more serious comment:
And conservative columnist Megan McCain, daughter of 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain, said on MSNBC that she is "pro-life, but I'm not pro-v@ginal probing." She added: "I'm just horrified by this bill. As a Republican woman, I'm horrified."
that's one of the biggest problems with today's GOP leadership - it is so far out of touch with most Americans - the middle class, the poor, women, minorities, and pretty much anyone not a wealthy white over-the-top conservative white male.
i mean, come on. trying to pass a law that forces a woman to have a phallus shoved up her hoo-ha? good lord, did *anyone* stop and think about that?
(and why the heck is the word v-agina censored on these boards?!?!)
|
|
| 1961 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 21:24
|
I also have to admit I can't imagine why they insisted on an upgrade from general ultrasound to Transv@ginal Ultrasound unless it was some RINO's trying to sabotage the effort ultimately.
|
|
| 1962 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 21:36
|
I also have to admit I can't imagine why they insisted on an upgrade from general ultrasound to Transv@ginal Ultrasound unless it was some RINO's trying to sabotage the effort ultimately.
i realize that you turn a blind eye to your heroes when they commit crimes and do terrible things.
but to blame someone else for their own over reach? then again, you consider yourself infallible and messianic, so maybe you see the the same way.
|
|
| 1963 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 22:14
|
General ultrasounds aren't feasible at that point in the pregnancy, Boldwin--you have to be further along for a regular one to pick up anything. The only way for an ultrasound to be done is via transváginal at that stage.
|
|
| 1964 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 22:26
|
How early is that necessary? My admittedly hazy memory [it's been 30 years] recalls pretty early ultrasounds.
|
|
| 1965 | Tree
ID: 34144259 Sat, Feb 25, 2012, 11:29
|
not sure how this one slipped by:
Awful White Rappers Drop the N Word at CPAC, Receive Applause
oh, but wait, a Dana Loesch mention!!!
The rappers have been identified by News One as Steven Crowder and Chris Loesch. Crowder is an occasional contributor to Fox News. Loesch is married to the conservative political analyst Dana Loesch.
|
|
| |
| 1967 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Feb 25, 2012, 11:41
|
From the article above,...
Debt to GDP ratios under the various proposed plans:

CRFB also calculates its own "realistic baseline." This sounds complicated, but it's the deficit reducer's equivalent of Beginner's Level. This baseline assumes that the Bush tax cuts are extended, some scheduled spending cuts are ignored, and Congress upholds its proud tradition of pushing off hard decisions while it pushes up our debt burden. Sounds reasonable and easy to beat with a few smart cuts and tax changes. But even playing the game on Beginner, every GOP candidate that has ever led a national poll loses the game. Only Ron Paul wins, with a whopping $7.5 trillion in spending cuts.
|
|
| 1968 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Feb 25, 2012, 12:24
|
The video in 1965 is incredible. By all means keep blaming the liberal zeitgeist for the GOP's inability to court minority voters.
They are so clueless that they have no idea why this should be regarded as any more offensive than a tweet in praise of Milbank's chimichanga zinger.
People want to vote for someone they can relate to. That room sure seemed to relate to a couple of members of the Fox News family chasing out the only black man present with a vile epithet as the audience cheered and the MCs mocked him for leaving.
At this rate the DNC can save their production budget for TV spots until 2016. The GOP seems intent on writing all their material for them. And if 2008 is any indicator, there's plenty more choice material on the way.
|
|
| 1969 | Mith
ID: 50151411 Sat, Feb 25, 2012, 12:53
|
So apparently they only teased the word. Nearing the end of the song, the beat drops out after the two use the word “knickers” as if it were a racial epitaph, drawing laughs from the conservatives in attendance.
“What? Knickers? I can say knickers!” they exclaim. Couple of real class acts there.
|
|
| 1970 | Mith
ID: 50151411 Sat, Feb 25, 2012, 13:05
|
Also, I was pretty sure the bald heavy guy in the audiance was Ed Morrissey someone I used to call my favorite conservative blogger when he ran his own site, Captain's Quarters. That was before he joined Hot Air.
Anyway, looks like I was right. True to his since reinvented form as a Michelle Malkin eunuch, he offers nothing but praise for the performance and has even had crowder as a guest on his show twice since.
|
|
| 1971 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 02:25
|
They HAD to be very very clear there or you'd be accusing them of N bombing...oh wait, you are anyway.
|
|
| 1972 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 02:30
|
So joking about offending people is OK, then?
|
|
| 1973 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 02:35
|
The easily offended are funny. Sorry, they just are, you even.
|
|
| 1974 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 02:52
|
The easily offended are funny. Sorry, they just are, you even
i suppose a song alluding to the kiddie touchers in Jehovah's Witnesses would be humor to you, if the words were slightly changed from "Jehovah's Witnesses are kiddie touchers" to "Jehovah's Witnesses are kidding touchers".
then again, someone who supports corpse desecration, the burning of holy books, and committing felonies, and has also proven to be a bigot, is obviously going to have no problems with racism.
|
|
| 1975 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 03:30
|
Is the previous poster really adding anything to your enjoyment of this forum?
|
|
| 1976 | bibA
ID: 4057177 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 09:23
|
They HAD to be very very clear there or you'd be accusing them of N bombing...oh wait, you are anyway.
The easily offended are funny.
So let me get this clear. You would find it oh so humorous to walk up to someones front door with a colleague, and upon finding a black family answering the door refer to them as "knickers", then heartily laugh because you were making a funny?
|
|
| 1977 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 09:33
|
Is the previous poster really adding anything to your enjoyment of this forum?
if you can't stand counter points, then leave.
you're the guy who considers himself to be a religious man, yet you condone the desecration of holy books, the desecration of corpses, and now, race baiting.
if your god is accepting of those things, more power to you. my god finds those things vile.
|
|
| 1978 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 11:13
|
"Is the previous poster really adding anything to your enjoyment of this forum?"
If this standard were universally applied, you'd have been gone a long time ago.
I do find it amusing, nay, funny, nay, totally ******* hilarious, that you're so easily offended though by his posts. After all, there's a difference between a Jehovah's Witnessic and a Jehovah's Witnessist. If you're the former, you have nothing to be offended about.
|
|
| 1979 | scoobies
ID: 161532715 Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 16:53
|
Yep, both 1974 and 1978 added quite a bit to my enjoyment of this forum today.
|
|
| |
| 1981 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 13:51
|
moderate Rep Sen Snowe, to leave office
The Bush-Cheney-Rove legacy, for which history will condemn them. More than anything else, they introduced vile partisanship to the exclusion of moderates, even from their own party.
|
|
| 1982 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 14:13
|
Good riddance.
|
|
| 1983 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 14:18
|
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I submit post 1982, as my final evidence in support of post 1981.
|
|
| 1984 | Razor
ID: 551031157 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 15:35
|
Not disappointed to see Snowe go. The idea that she is a moderate is not borne out by her behavior over the last couple of years, when she joined the GOP minority to block virtually all legislation.
|
|
| |
| 1986 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 19:29
|
ummmm, has anyone told him that as a Republican, he is supposed to blindly love Israel? (Which is not to take away from the ignorance of his statement. But does he even understand his own parties positions????)
|
|
| |
| 1988 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 21:40
|
Yeah, even his fellow GOP House members there in IN made fun of him for that one. The Maj Leader (Rep) brough a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies to session, and passed them out. Morris, is a buffoon, whose own party is (rightfully) holdng him in ridicule for that.
|
|
| 1989 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 21:47
|
This to me is worse than one moronic State Rep
Several Girl Scout troops in Chantilly, Va., have been banned from meeting at a local Catholic church and a neighboring school.
St. Timothy Catholic Church said that scouts won’t be allowed to meet or wear their uniforms on church property. The edict also applies to the adjacent St. Timothy School, which enrolls students from preschool to eighth grade.
According to the Arlington Diocese, the pastor did not believe the National Girl Scouts membership to the World Association of Girl Guides & Girl Scouts aligned with the message of the church, stemming from a perceived connection between WAGGGS and Planned Parenthood.
The Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital said its parent/national organization is not WAGGGS, but instead Girl Scouts of the USA, which does not have a relationship with Planned Parenthood.
Such self righteous posturing, can not serve the greater good. Just cant.
|
|
| 1990 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 00:46
|
What makes you think it's just a pose?
Why shouldn't churches have principles they consider righteous? You are suggesting they should be self-wicked?
I suppose you also think right and wrong are only adult matters that children shouldn't have to deal with.
Individual good and 'greater good' are not mutually exclusive by any means. Not if they are genuinely good.
|
|
| 1991 | Canadian Hack
ID: 164132618 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 00:52
|
Churches will be judged on their decisions. Seriously do you think Girl Scouts are bad? Can you support anybody who does? This church's position is a pretty ridiculous position for anybody who doesn't think that inserting a god into the equation can justify bigotry (and that includes everyone here not named Baldwin or Boldwin I think).
|
|
| 1992 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 01:10
|
Seriously do you think Girl Scouts are bad?
I don't know how anyone can be surprised that a church wouldn't allow a lesbian lifestyle promoting group to indoctrinate young impressionable minds into accepting immoral lifestyles on church property.
I'd be gobsmacked if they accepted it.
|
|
| 1993 | Canadian Hack
ID: 164132618 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 01:34
|
The Girl Scouts are not a lesbian lifestyle promoting group anywhere except in your head and in the least reality based right wing blogs you frequent.
This is your problem Baldwin. You make points that are not reality based and expect other people to accept them at face value.
|
|
| 1994 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 01:38
|
B? The church in question said nothing of lesbian anything. They alledge that the Girl Scouts parent organization; has ties to PLanned Parenthood. Unfortunately, the organization the church cites, is NOT the parent organization of the Girl Scouts. Ergo, there exists no such tie with Planned Parenthood, and the "REASON" for the dismissal, is patently bogus.
You MIGHT, try reading the associated links. At least then, you could possibly spew relevant bullsh*t.
|
|
| 1995 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 02:34
|
i wonder if former Girl Scouts Laura Bush, Elizabeth Dole, Pat Nixon, Marilyn Quayle, and yes, even Nancy Reagan are aware they are members of a "lesbian lifestyle promoting group".
|
|
| 1996 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 09:12
|
They have lesbians serving as role model leaders. Teach that stuff somewhere else.
Yes I was aware the linked issue was support of abortion. Girl scouts as an organization also support and teach favorable attitudes towards abortion, no matter if that linked church group got the reason right or not.
This is why local Girl Scout leaders have to strategize ways of avoiding participation and funding of programs like having Planned Parenthood teach Girl Scouts while still technically remaining compliant with membership in the Girl Scouts.
Yes, I am sure living famous former Girl Scout leaders are aware that lesbians are leaders among Girl Scouts today.
The Boy Scouts passed the test not to allow that, but are under relentless pressure to cave also.
But you all should know this stuff and probably do.
|
|
| |
| 1998 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 11:55
|
"Why are these radical feminist pro-abortion forces so eager to conduct their business under cover of church auspices? "
Wait, what?
|
|
| 1999 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 12:23
|
Why is the church suddenly, so eager to be devisive and exclusionary?
Go preach your vile hatred, somewhere else.
|
|
| 2000 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 12:47
|
How you know you're completely off the ******* rails: when you decide to start referring to local Girl Scout troops as "radical feminist pro-abortion forces".
|
|
| 2001 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 21:27
|
The GOP primary is off the rails.
Finally, they declare Romney the winner in Iowa prematurely (turns out, Santorum won the state)
Then they announce Romney won Maine despite some votes being "lost." Finally, Michigan GOP'ers announce that they will break party rules and allocate both at-large delegates to Romney, who comes out of the state with a 16-14 win over Santorum.
It should be noted that the GOP set this calendar up specifically in response to the 2008 Democratic primary in which Obama and Clinton went at it long and hard. The difference is that Obama and Clinton went at it over policy differences, exciting Democrats and leading to high voter registration and interest. This GOP primary is one personal attack after another and GOP voter interest is actually dropping.
|
|
| |
| 2003 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 14:15
|
A summary:
|
|
| 2004 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 14:44
|
Vote Democrat...and all strawmen will lie prostrate at your feet.
|
|
| 2005 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:19
|
is there a problem with the strawman arguments, all falling flat?
|
|
| 2006 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:29
|
Irelevant.
|
|
| 2007 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 16:29
|
lol
|
|
| 2008 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 00:29
|
Heh.
Definition clarification: It isn't a strawman argument when GOP leaders are actually making these points.
|
|
| 2009 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 10:58
|
Example:
No one is actually suggesting to replace the constitution with the Bible.
|
|
| 2010 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 11:09
|
Re 2003: What was the point of that post? If you want to claim you are better than someone or part of the solution then why would you post something that is clearly there to inflame?
|
|
| 2011 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 11:39
|
I summary of the wacky ideas coming from the GOP these days is helpful so we don't get too far into the weeds, IMO.
The GOP is not only reflexively anti-Obama, but have (now) three very poor presidential candidates. This is, in fact, the "direction of the GOP."
|
|
| 2012 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 11:49
|
The GOP is not only reflexively anti-Obama
You say that like it's a bad thing.
When are you going to deal with #2009, PD?
|
|
| 2013 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 12:14
|
No one is actually suggesting to replace the constitution with the Bible.
The point being made is much more subtle than that--kind of surprised you didn't catch it.
You believe than no GOP presidential candidate wants to replace constitutionally-protected acts, rights, or speeches with Biblically-based alternatives? That, when there is a conflict of importance to the speaker, that the Bible should be the operative text in this country?
[Hint: He's the candidate who doesn't believe in personal liberties].
|
|
| 2014 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 16:17
|
One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.
Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.
Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.
And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.
Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.
Krugman. Calling Reagan a stinkin' Commie again.
|
|
| 2015 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 16:35
|
(In before "it was those evil Democrats that made Reagan do all the spending", even though Reagan gets sole credit for all the good stuff.)
|
|
| 2016 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 18:34
|
A) It was an actual recovery, government receipts went up.
B) Speakers of Houses spend money. Presidents don't spend money. They can veto and they spend money in the sense that they cash the checks congress gives them but otherwise...
|
|
| 2017 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 19:03
|
sooooo, how can you constantlky blast on Obama for HIS spending? Your words, Presidents don't spend money.
|
|
| 2018 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 19:13
|
Oh, I mainly blame Nancy Pelosi. You missed that fear and loathing?
I also blame Harry Reid.
I also blame the guy who has vetoed all the stuff the Tea Party House of Representatives have sent him.
|
|
| 2019 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 19:58
|
Tea Party? Oh yeah, those folks who say the millionaires dont have enough yet, so give them more of a break. THOSE folks?
|
|
| |
| 2021 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 04:01
|
McCain carrying Soros' water there.
I've already pointed out the 'wag the dog' potential in Iran. Which would also be carrying Soros' water.
|
|
| 2022 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 04:41
|
A) It was an actual recovery, government receipts went up.
That was precisely the point Krugman was making. We would have a lot more recovery if we had a lot less "austerity".
|
|
| 2023 | bibA
ID: 4057177 Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 08:40
|
Just to get it straight here B-
If Obama does not bomb Iran, he is weak, and catering to Muslims.
If Obama does bomb Iran, he is weak, and just wagging the dog.
|
|
| 2024 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 09:14
|
McCain carrying Soros' water there.
I've already pointed out the 'wag the dog' potential in Iran. Which would also be carrying Soros' water.
Please explain how Soros is connected to the possibility of bombing either Syria or Iran. You've provided no links to support your claims, indeed, not a shred of analysis. One can only conclude that the entire post is indicative of Alinsky tactics.
|
|
| 2026 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 15:05
|
Trump says Obama will start a war with Itran, to bolster his re-election chances
Trump does realize that Obama by the time the election comes around Obama could probably come out and say his birth certificate is fake and he is socialist and still win the presidency? I don't think he needs to start a war to bolster his re-election chances.
|
|
| 2027 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 15:34
|
NEW THREAD
|
|
|