The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing
- Thread starter MSI Magus
- Start date
[quote name='mykevermin']Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
should get the attention and audacity of the media in a way that makes Shirley Sherrod look like nothing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, the simple fact that he's standing in front of a Confederate flag says enough.
that "it represents history and state's rights" bullshit too, we all know what that flag stands for and the fact that he's willing to stand in front of it and give a speech about how abolition was handled incorrectly says everything about his opinions on race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
should get the attention and audacity of the media in a way that makes Shirley Sherrod look like nothing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, the simple fact that he's standing in front of a Confederate flag says enough.
that "it represents history and state's rights" bullshit too, we all know what that flag stands for and the fact that he's willing to stand in front of it and give a speech about how abolition was handled incorrectly says everything about his opinions on race.[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Watch from 1:27 again. After watching, read section XIX of this, the author and work that Paul is referencing:
http://jim.com/treason.htm[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to claim to have read all of that, and I can't at the moment watch the video again, but are you trying to say that Paul doesn't believe the constitution binds current Americans? Because I find that hard to believe of the man. Not someone who clings to the constitution like a holy book.
But no, what I took away from that video was, as I said before, Paul believes that nearly everything should be left up to the states to decide for themselves, which has been his M.O. for as long as I've known about the man.
http://jim.com/treason.htm[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to claim to have read all of that, and I can't at the moment watch the video again, but are you trying to say that Paul doesn't believe the constitution binds current Americans? Because I find that hard to believe of the man. Not someone who clings to the constitution like a holy book.
But no, what I took away from that video was, as I said before, Paul believes that nearly everything should be left up to the states to decide for themselves, which has been his M.O. for as long as I've known about the man.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']But no, what I took away from that video was, as I said before, Paul believes that nearly everything should be left up to the states to decide for themselves, which has been his M.O. for as long as I've known about the man.[/QUOTE]
Starting at 1:27, he pointed out that numerous other countries ended slavery without a war; mostly, it was ended legislatively, and one example he uses is simply buying the slaves and releasing them. That that would have been a far better option than killing 600,000-700,000 people, slaughtering entire towns of people, and destroying the notion of habeus corpus. Spooner stated in that section that the North could have simply said "no slaves. end of." and went on with its merry business, instead of issuing a stupid proclamation that condoned and defended slavery in the border states and North while thumbing its nose at an already seceded entity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOfhejPs08
And, finally, his position on why he uses the Constitution in so many of his arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s
I don't expect you to change your position on anything, just giving you a more complete understanding of the philosophy behind opposition to things like Lincoln and the Civil War.
Starting at 1:27, he pointed out that numerous other countries ended slavery without a war; mostly, it was ended legislatively, and one example he uses is simply buying the slaves and releasing them. That that would have been a far better option than killing 600,000-700,000 people, slaughtering entire towns of people, and destroying the notion of habeus corpus. Spooner stated in that section that the North could have simply said "no slaves. end of." and went on with its merry business, instead of issuing a stupid proclamation that condoned and defended slavery in the border states and North while thumbing its nose at an already seceded entity.
It's full of piss and vinegar, so it's not exactly a breezy read. If you can ever manage to read the whole thing, and not just that section, it's a fascinating book. In any event, Paul was asked just this last year, at a Reagan GOP dinner:
Here's another question to him, asking what he thinks of those who prefer self-government over a return to the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOfhejPs08
And, finally, his position on why he uses the Constitution in so many of his arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s
I don't expect you to change your position on anything, just giving you a more complete understanding of the philosophy behind opposition to things like Lincoln and the Civil War.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']It is a shame the South seceded and then started the war before a peaceful resolution they would never accept could be found.[/QUOTE]
It's a shame the founders ever compromised on the slavery issue and condoned its existence. America would have been better remaining under the Articles of Confederation rather than unifying and endorsing slavery. Failing that, the correct course of action would have been let the South secede and be dickbags. Oh, and forbid slavery for anyone who wants to be part of the U.S.
And the South starting the war would be like us claiming Iran started a war if they struck at us.
It's a shame the founders ever compromised on the slavery issue and condoned its existence. America would have been better remaining under the Articles of Confederation rather than unifying and endorsing slavery. Failing that, the correct course of action would have been let the South secede and be dickbags. Oh, and forbid slavery for anyone who wants to be part of the U.S.
And the South starting the war would be like us claiming Iran started a war if they struck at us.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Starting at 1:27, he pointed out that numerous other countries ended slavery without a war; mostly, it was ended legislatively, and one example he uses is simply buying the slaves and releasing them. That that would have been a far better option than killing 600,000-700,000 people, slaughtering entire towns of people, and destroying the notion of habeus corpus. Spooner stated in that section that the North could have simply said "no slaves. end of." and went on with its merry business, instead of issuing a stupid proclamation that condoned and defended slavery in the border states and North while thumbing its nose at an already seceded entity.
It's full of piss and vinegar, so it's not exactly a breezy read. If you can ever manage to read the whole thing, and not just that section, it's a fascinating book. In any event, Paul was asked just this last year, at a Reagan GOP dinner:
Here's another question to him, asking what he thinks of those who prefer self-government over a return to the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOfhejPs08
And, finally, his position on why he uses the Constitution in so many of his arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s
I don't expect you to change your position on anything, just giving you a more complete understanding of the philosophy behind opposition to things like Lincoln and the Civil War.[/QUOTE]
But Paul even says in your quote "But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it." You see, "good parts" is subjective. He advocates for a following of the constitution's "good parts"? To me this is all about taking the long road to get to what he believes, which as I said, is that the states should be left up to do most things themselves, even things which have a national reach. Paul just doesn't think the federal government should be able to do much of anything.
Buying slaves freedom is different notion though, I'd be surprised if Paul agreed with that as well.
It's full of piss and vinegar, so it's not exactly a breezy read. If you can ever manage to read the whole thing, and not just that section, it's a fascinating book. In any event, Paul was asked just this last year, at a Reagan GOP dinner:
Here's another question to him, asking what he thinks of those who prefer self-government over a return to the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOfhejPs08
And, finally, his position on why he uses the Constitution in so many of his arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s
I don't expect you to change your position on anything, just giving you a more complete understanding of the philosophy behind opposition to things like Lincoln and the Civil War.[/QUOTE]
But Paul even says in your quote "But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it." You see, "good parts" is subjective. He advocates for a following of the constitution's "good parts"? To me this is all about taking the long road to get to what he believes, which as I said, is that the states should be left up to do most things themselves, even things which have a national reach. Paul just doesn't think the federal government should be able to do much of anything.
Buying slaves freedom is different notion though, I'd be surprised if Paul agreed with that as well.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']It's a shame the founders ever compromised on the slavery issue and condoned its existence. America would have been better remaining under the Articles of Confederation rather than unifying and endorsing slavery. Failing that, the correct course of action would have been let the South secede and be dickbags. Oh, and forbid slavery for anyone who wants to be part of the U.S.
And the South starting the war would be like us claiming Iran started a war if they struck at us.[/QUOTE]
And yet it's those very same founders that Paul and other's like him worship. I actually agree that slavery shouldn't have been compromised on. I imagine people like Jefferson must have been in real conflict with writing that "all men are created equal" when they obviously didn't practice that.
Let me put it this way, if Paul is as you say he is, then many, and I mean MANY of his followers are confused about who he is.
And the South starting the war would be like us claiming Iran started a war if they struck at us.[/QUOTE]
And yet it's those very same founders that Paul and other's like him worship. I actually agree that slavery shouldn't have been compromised on. I imagine people like Jefferson must have been in real conflict with writing that "all men are created equal" when they obviously didn't practice that.
Let me put it this way, if Paul is as you say he is, then many, and I mean MANY of his followers are confused about who he is.
[quote name='Clak']And yet it's those very same founders that Paul and other's like him worship. I actually agree that slavery shouldn't have been compromised on. I imagine people like Jefferson must have been in real conflict with writing that "all men are created equal" when they obviously didn't practice that.
Let me put it this way, if Paul is as you say he is, then many, and I mean MANY of his followers are confused about who he is.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Jefferson was conflicted at all. He probably wrote that between sexually assaulting his numerous female slaves. justsayin...
Let me put it this way, if Paul is as you say he is, then many, and I mean MANY of his followers are confused about who he is.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Jefferson was conflicted at all. He probably wrote that between sexually assaulting his numerous female slaves. justsayin...
http://gifsound.com/?gif=http://i.i.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq6avbbbg0M&start=12
The more I hear Santorum speak, the less I like him. He hates the poor. He attacks prenatal screenings for birth defects. His foreign policy plan will probably start a giant world war. How can anyone vote for this guy?
The more I hear Santorum speak, the less I like him. He hates the poor. He attacks prenatal screenings for birth defects. His foreign policy plan will probably start a giant world war. How can anyone vote for this guy?
Last edited by a moderator:
The more I hear Santorum speak, the less I like him (as a person). He hates the poor. He attacks prenatal screenings for birth defects. His foreign policy plan will probably start a giant world war. He's probably one of the worst practicing Christians. How can anyone even consider tossing a vote for this guy?
And just because...
http://gifsound.com/?gif=http://i.i.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq6avbbbg0M&start=12
And just because...
http://gifsound.com/?gif=http://i.i.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq6avbbbg0M&start=12
[quote name='Chase']The more I hear Santorum speak, the less I like him (as a person). He hates the poor. He attacks prenatal screenings for birth defects. His foreign policy plan will probably start a giant world war. He's probably one of the worst practicing Christians. How can anyone even consider tossing a vote for this guy?
And just because...
http://gifsound.com/?gif=http://i.i.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq6avbbbg0M&start=12[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly why I'm pulling for him to win the primary. He will get absolutely torn apart in a general. There's absolutely nothing moderate about the guy. Throw in Bachmann and you've got the potential for the greatest landslide victory since Goldwater.
And just because...
http://gifsound.com/?gif=http://i.i.../www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq6avbbbg0M&start=12[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly why I'm pulling for him to win the primary. He will get absolutely torn apart in a general. There's absolutely nothing moderate about the guy. Throw in Bachmann and you've got the potential for the greatest landslide victory since Goldwater.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Which is exactly why I'm pulling for him to win the primary. He will get absolutely torn apart in a general. There's absolutely nothing moderate about the guy. Throw in Bachmann and you've got the potential for the greatest landslide victory since Goldwater.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm not really sure what the Santorum endgame is. He's gone way past just reminding Romney that the Republican party contains a significant cadre of religious wackos that like to be paid lipservice.
So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.
Yeah I'm not really sure what the Santorum endgame is. He's gone way past just reminding Romney that the Republican party contains a significant cadre of religious wackos that like to be paid lipservice.
So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.[/QUOTE]
Antidote.
To the poison he just drank!
Antidote.
To the poison he just drank!
[quote name='camoor']Yeah I'm not really sure what the Santorum endgame is. He's gone way past just reminding Romney that the Republican party contains a significant cadre of religious wackos that like to be paid lipservice.
So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.[/QUOTE]
I find Santorum a really interesting candidate because he comes very close to going full-liberal when he talks about some issues. Admitting mistakes, socio-economy mobility, the necessity for political maneuvering, and a couple other things clearly show that there's something else going on besides dominionist rhetoric because these are not really conservative things. I'm not saying that he isn't reprehesible though.
So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.[/QUOTE]
I find Santorum a really interesting candidate because he comes very close to going full-liberal when he talks about some issues. Admitting mistakes, socio-economy mobility, the necessity for political maneuvering, and a couple other things clearly show that there's something else going on besides dominionist rhetoric because these are not really conservative things. I'm not saying that he isn't reprehesible though.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Santorum has admitted mistakes?
Granted, I'm only paying half attention to him (because he's so loony I don't consider him worthy of consideration), but most of his errors (to my knowledge) have been gaffes that involve his severe religious beliefs (e.g., satan has invaded america via higher education).
And when he invokes his religious convictions, those struck me as precisely the kinds of things he would double down and refuse to apologize for.
Granted, I'm only paying half attention to him (because he's so loony I don't consider him worthy of consideration), but most of his errors (to my knowledge) have been gaffes that involve his severe religious beliefs (e.g., satan has invaded america via higher education).
And when he invokes his religious convictions, those struck me as precisely the kinds of things he would double down and refuse to apologize for.
What I mean is that broaching those subjects is basically admitting weakness as a Republican/conservative candidate even if it's to double down on some other bullshit later, which is different from Romney and Romneycare as Romney doesn't apologize for shit. Shit like talking about his politiking with NCLB doesn't help his case in the eyes of his constituents. The "full on liberal" thing was just hyperbolic.
[quote name='camoor']Yeah I'm not really sure what the Santorum endgame is. He's gone way past just reminding Romney that the Republican party contains a significant cadre of religious wackos that like to be paid lipservice.
So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.[/QUOTE]
It's sort of surprising to see Santorum have this late stage surge, but I think he's found the Religious Right was the one area that really wasn't being catered to very well. Gingrich is more of an establishment Republican that just sounds like an opportunist discussing the topic, Ron Paul really has little interest in it, and it seems to be a topic Romney does his best to skirt around due to the whole Mormon stigma.
It's a horse he's starting riding a little too hard, but my guess is he's positioning himself for VP. Because of the other candidates' weaknesses in that area, Santorum could easily be used to balance the ticket. Of course, it's getting to the point where it could easily backfire. The Religious Right may love what he's saying, but more and more, he's crossing into territories where moderates are going to be scared off.
So what is his deal? Win the primary so you can lose big in the general election? Get beaten so badly that noone considers a religious extremist for prez again? Works for me, but I can't see what he gets out of it.[/QUOTE]
It's sort of surprising to see Santorum have this late stage surge, but I think he's found the Religious Right was the one area that really wasn't being catered to very well. Gingrich is more of an establishment Republican that just sounds like an opportunist discussing the topic, Ron Paul really has little interest in it, and it seems to be a topic Romney does his best to skirt around due to the whole Mormon stigma.
It's a horse he's starting riding a little too hard, but my guess is he's positioning himself for VP. Because of the other candidates' weaknesses in that area, Santorum could easily be used to balance the ticket. Of course, it's getting to the point where it could easily backfire. The Religious Right may love what he's saying, but more and more, he's crossing into territories where moderates are going to be scared off.
Allnatural
CAGiversary!
BigT
CAGiversary!
That's the most hilarious political clip I've seen this season... couldn't stop laughing.
The problem with Santorum is that he really believes that he's hot stuff right now... though in my cartoon-like mind, I pretty much view him as being the guy in the badlipreading clip... he's to stupid to realize that he's just a jobber being used to keep the race interesting for longer so that the media gets more advertising money...
The problem with Santorum is that he really believes that he's hot stuff right now... though in my cartoon-like mind, I pretty much view him as being the guy in the badlipreading clip... he's to stupid to realize that he's just a jobber being used to keep the race interesting for longer so that the media gets more advertising money...
Santorum can win primaries, and he has proven that. But independents won't vote for him even if they have the opportunity to do so. This is going to be an election decided by the independent vote, and I don't just mean people who are registered independents, but also people who are "red" or "blue" who are disenchanted with the system we have. A 3rd party Paul/Kucinich alliance would easily snatch up my vote. Talk about balancing the ticket.
StarKnightX
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 234 (100%)
Since I didn't see it mentioned , what does everyone think about the possibility of Rosanne Barr running for President as the Green Party candidate? I'm guessing not much (since it wasn't brought up) because its just another futile effort by a 3rd party? Admittedly she said she's not even sure she'd get the nod (someone else seems to be leading the pack) but really wants to give it a shot anyway.
Thinking about that , has ANY 3rd party candidate come close to winning a presidential election? I've always heard that Ross Perot came the closest but even he was miles away from winning.
Thinking about that , has ANY 3rd party candidate come close to winning a presidential election? I've always heard that Ross Perot came the closest but even he was miles away from winning.
[quote name='StarKnightX']Thinking about that , has ANY 3rd party candidate come close to winning a presidential election? I've always heard that Ross Perot came the closest but even he was miles away from winning.[/QUOTE]
The one that comes immediately to mind is Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose (aka Progressive) Party. In 1912, he came in second, ahead of the Republican contender. Now, it's not like this was really close. Roosevelt got 88 electoral votes to Woodrow Wilson's 435, but Roosevelt did actually get a number of states, something third parties don't often do (Perot got none).
Wikipedia, unsurprisingly, has a good page on this.
The one that comes immediately to mind is Teddy Roosevelt's Bull-Moose (aka Progressive) Party. In 1912, he came in second, ahead of the Republican contender. Now, it's not like this was really close. Roosevelt got 88 electoral votes to Woodrow Wilson's 435, but Roosevelt did actually get a number of states, something third parties don't often do (Perot got none).
Wikipedia, unsurprisingly, has a good page on this.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Spokker']Santorum can win primaries, and he has proven that. But independents won't vote for him even if they have the opportunity to do so. This is going to be an election decided by the independent vote, and I don't just mean people who are registered independents, but also people who are "red" or "blue" who are disenchanted with the system we have. A 3rd party Paul/Kucinich alliance would easily snatch up my vote. Talk about balancing the ticket.[/QUOTE]
I sort of get this weird feeling that Independents are going to say home en mass this year. It really seems like one of those 'why am I voting again?' scenarios this year where the vote is way down.
The longer election cycles get, and for the Republicans, this one started too long ago, the more people will become disenfranchised from the system due the gross length of the campaign and the absurd amount of money spent on it. I personally think we need to start limiting the campaign season and the amount of primary debates during election season. Less is more. People want politicians to just shut the up.
I sort of get this weird feeling that Independents are going to say home en mass this year. It really seems like one of those 'why am I voting again?' scenarios this year where the vote is way down.
The longer election cycles get, and for the Republicans, this one started too long ago, the more people will become disenfranchised from the system due the gross length of the campaign and the absurd amount of money spent on it. I personally think we need to start limiting the campaign season and the amount of primary debates during election season. Less is more. People want politicians to just shut the
up.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I don't think any one voting bloc is going to stay home this year - the economy is not at a point where the public will be complacent.
Where do you get the idea that they will?
Where do you get the idea that they will?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think any one voting bloc is going to stay home this year - the economy is not at a point where the public will be complacent.
Where do you get the idea that they will?[/QUOTE]
While I'm unsure of whether you or Broly will end up correct, he does have a point. Anyone paying attention to politics the last several years will notice a pattern of who your voting for seemingly not making a damn bit of difference to the big picture problems.
Where do you get the idea that they will?[/QUOTE]
While I'm unsure of whether you or Broly will end up correct, he does have a point. Anyone paying attention to politics the last several years will notice a pattern of who your voting for seemingly not making a damn bit of difference to the big picture problems.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
You've been humming that same tune for how long now?
I'm asking for a source. There's no lack of public opinion polls when it comes to presidential politics - so if you want to make a counterintuitive claim (that in a weakened economy the public at large will remain indifferent on election day), so your work.
"anyone paying attention to politics" = blah blah blah blah. Show your work. "Look around you" is a weak argument teeming with confirmatory bias.
I'm asking for a source. There's no lack of public opinion polls when it comes to presidential politics - so if you want to make a counterintuitive claim (that in a weakened economy the public at large will remain indifferent on election day), so your work.
"anyone paying attention to politics" = blah blah blah blah. Show your work. "Look around you" is a weak argument teeming with confirmatory bias.
Yeah, there's a big difference between neither party fitting the views of extremists like thrust, and not thinking there are any policy differences between the two parties. It's just that neither party comes close to his anarchist type of views so he's not happy with either side.
But there are still big picture difference. No Bush=no Iraq war. If Obama hadn't won there wouldn't be any health care reform, no new consumer protection agency or new regulation, we'd still be in Iraq, don't ask don't tell wouldn't get repealed etc.
Hopefully if he gets a second term we'll see some tax changes--even if it's just letting the Bush tax cuts expire this time. Even better if he can get the Buffett rule and changes to capital gains taxes through. Foreign policy hopefully we're mostly out of Afghanistan by the end of a second term, and not involved in any new wars.
All that stuff wouldn't happen IMO if a republican wins. So there are differences between the two. Just neither is close to the policy an extremist on the far right like Thrust wants, nor any extremist on the far left wants. The parties are center right and center left these days, but there are still meaningful policy differences between them.
But there are still big picture difference. No Bush=no Iraq war. If Obama hadn't won there wouldn't be any health care reform, no new consumer protection agency or new regulation, we'd still be in Iraq, don't ask don't tell wouldn't get repealed etc.
Hopefully if he gets a second term we'll see some tax changes--even if it's just letting the Bush tax cuts expire this time. Even better if he can get the Buffett rule and changes to capital gains taxes through. Foreign policy hopefully we're mostly out of Afghanistan by the end of a second term, and not involved in any new wars.
All that stuff wouldn't happen IMO if a republican wins. So there are differences between the two. Just neither is close to the policy an extremist on the far right like Thrust wants, nor any extremist on the far left wants. The parties are center right and center left these days, but there are still meaningful policy differences between them.
Maybe. But Obama has gone after enough on the left for me to still call him center left (but not very far left)--health care, repeal don't ask don't tell, pushing for the Buffet rule etc.
But I'm more middle left (or between center left and middle left even) myself, rather than far left, so Obama doesn't seem as much like a Republican to me to those of you further on the left.
But I'm more middle left (or between center left and middle left even) myself, rather than far left, so Obama doesn't seem as much like a Republican to me to those of you further on the left.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, there's a big difference between neither party fitting the views of extremists like thrust, and not thinking there are any policy differences between the two parties. It's just that neither party comes close to his anarchist type of views so he's not happy with either side.
But there are still big picture difference. No Bush=no Iraq war. If Obama hadn't won there wouldn't be any health care reform, no new consumer protection agency or new regulation, we'd still be in Iraq, don't ask don't tell wouldn't get repealed etc.
Hopefully if he gets a second term we'll see some tax changes--even if it's just letting the Bush tax cuts expire this time. Even better if he can get the Buffett rule and changes to capital gains taxes through. Foreign policy hopefully we're mostly out of Afghanistan by the end of a second term, and not involved in any new wars.
All that stuff wouldn't happen IMO if a republican wins. So there are differences between the two. Just neither is close to the policy an extremist on the far right like Thrust wants, nor any extremist on the far left wants. The parties are center right and center left these days, but there are still meaningful policy differences between them.[/QUOTE]
Oh the cons are pissed at Buffet, Christie told him to shut his trap. He's making other rich white guys look bad, and we can't have that.
But there are still big picture difference. No Bush=no Iraq war. If Obama hadn't won there wouldn't be any health care reform, no new consumer protection agency or new regulation, we'd still be in Iraq, don't ask don't tell wouldn't get repealed etc.
Hopefully if he gets a second term we'll see some tax changes--even if it's just letting the Bush tax cuts expire this time. Even better if he can get the Buffett rule and changes to capital gains taxes through. Foreign policy hopefully we're mostly out of Afghanistan by the end of a second term, and not involved in any new wars.
All that stuff wouldn't happen IMO if a republican wins. So there are differences between the two. Just neither is close to the policy an extremist on the far right like Thrust wants, nor any extremist on the far left wants. The parties are center right and center left these days, but there are still meaningful policy differences between them.[/QUOTE]
Oh the cons are pissed at Buffet, Christie told him to shut his trap. He's making other rich white guys look bad, and we can't have that.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...it-leads-over-romney-and-santorum/?hpt=hp_bn3
Some mixed results in a couple of recent polls. One has Obama with a double digit lead over both Romney and Santorum, the other has him tied with Romney and 3% behind Santorum.
Some mixed results in a couple of recent polls. One has Obama with a double digit lead over both Romney and Santorum, the other has him tied with Romney and 3% behind Santorum.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Maybe. But Obama has gone after enough on the left for me to still call him center left (but not very far left)--health care, repeal don't ask don't tell, pushing for the Buffet rule etc.
But I'm more middle left (or between center left and middle left even) myself, rather than far left, so Obama doesn't seem as much like a Republican to me to those of you further on the left.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that tackling those issues isn't leftist and you certainly have a point. Maybe it's ideological, and I'm not saying it isn't, but PPACA was based off a 20 year old Republican proposal and it's problematic for me to sat that it isn't center-right. DADT is interesting as well because it was Clinton that was responsible for it because of Republican pressure.
Personally, I think it's more accurate to look at the mode as opposed to the average/mean first, to see where he leans and go from there.
But I'm more middle left (or between center left and middle left even) myself, rather than far left, so Obama doesn't seem as much like a Republican to me to those of you further on the left.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that tackling those issues isn't leftist and you certainly have a point. Maybe it's ideological, and I'm not saying it isn't, but PPACA was based off a 20 year old Republican proposal and it's problematic for me to sat that it isn't center-right. DADT is interesting as well because it was Clinton that was responsible for it because of Republican pressure.
Personally, I think it's more accurate to look at the mode as opposed to the average/mean first, to see where he leans and go from there.
[quote name='Clak']Oh the cons are pissed at Buffet, Christie told him to shut his trap. He's making other rich white guys look bad, and we can't have that.[/QUOTE]
Buffet already told Tits Christie whatfor:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ett-jabs-christie-for-telling-him-to-shut-up/
Buffet already told Tits Christie whatfor:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ett-jabs-christie-for-telling-him-to-shut-up/
Rick Santorum wants you to work at Jiffy Lube
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/140626623.html
Also acceptable:
Smart people are dumb
Burn your GED alongside that thing that sounds like Crayon
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/140626623.html
Also acceptable:
Smart people are dumb
Burn your GED alongside that thing that sounds like Crayon
[quote name='nasum']Rick Santorum wants you to work at Jiffy Lube
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/140626623.html
Also acceptable:
Smart people are dumb
Burn your GED alongside that thing that sounds like Crayon[/QUOTE]
Self-loathing son of a bitch has a BA, MBA, and JD. What aing asshole.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/140626623.html
Also acceptable:
Smart people are dumb
Burn your GED alongside that thing that sounds like Crayon[/QUOTE]
Self-loathing son of a bitch has a BA, MBA, and JD. What a
ing asshole.Matt Taibbi kinda hits the hammer on the head in his observation about conservatives in this election cycle. He's a bit hyperbolic like always, but his perspective brings to light a pretty important aspect of the current race for GOP nominee.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ervative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ervative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
doughdoh calling out someone else on hyperbole. sweet.
Headline of theing CENTURY right here:
"Santorum comes from behind in Alabama three-way"
Headline of the
ing CENTURY right here:"Santorum comes from behind in Alabama three-way"
I think this is the right place to post the link. Cracked me up when I watched it. This guy is brilliant. His world vision, his take on politics. I'm usually fairly up on these kinds of things, but I hadn't heard of this guy until the past weekend:
...
Edit: Whoops, realized the commentary is from some far right extremist thing, I was mainly just looking for the video:
Better link, from the source:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...embarrassed-as-an-american-by-gop-candidates/
...
Edit: Whoops, realized the commentary is from some far right extremist thing, I was mainly just looking for the video:
Better link, from the source:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...embarrassed-as-an-american-by-gop-candidates/
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']doughdoh calling out someone else on hyperbole. sweet.[/QUOTE]
¿Que?
[quote name='berzirk']I think this is the right place to post the link. Cracked me up when I watched it. This guy is brilliant. His world vision, his take on politics. I'm usually fairly up on these kinds of things, but I hadn't heard of this guy until the past weekend:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...terally-feel-embarrassed-american-gop-preside[/QUOTE]
Please elaborate.
¿Que?
[quote name='berzirk']I think this is the right place to post the link. Cracked me up when I watched it. This guy is brilliant. His world vision, his take on politics. I'm usually fairly up on these kinds of things, but I hadn't heard of this guy until the past weekend:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...terally-feel-embarrassed-american-gop-preside[/QUOTE]
Please elaborate.
[quote name='dohdough']
Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
The guy talked about how the US is no longer the Global Superpower we once were, yet many of our decision makers try to act like we still have that power. He goes on to talk about the complete and total lack of awareness that the current GOP candidates have for foreign policy issues, and he calls them not just uninformed, but dangerous.
Talks about Israel v. Iran, Obama's foreign policy (which I actually thought he was a little too praising of, but this guy has so much experience inside of the issue, I've gotta weigh his view on it more than my own).
Just overall refreshing, accurate, non-grandiose view of the world. I really liked it. A pleasant reminder that there is still intelligent thought on international affairs. Watching Romney, Santorum and Gingrich had made me lose all faith.
Edit: Whoops, and regarding the link, I was really just looking for the video, so after I posted it, I realized the site was full of a bunch of horsecrap commentary so I edited it out and replaced it with a link to the CNN page which is much more informative anyway.
Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
The guy talked about how the US is no longer the Global Superpower we once were, yet many of our decision makers try to act like we still have that power. He goes on to talk about the complete and total lack of awareness that the current GOP candidates have for foreign policy issues, and he calls them not just uninformed, but dangerous.
Talks about Israel v. Iran, Obama's foreign policy (which I actually thought he was a little too praising of, but this guy has so much experience inside of the issue, I've gotta weigh his view on it more than my own).
Just overall refreshing, accurate, non-grandiose view of the world. I really liked it. A pleasant reminder that there is still intelligent thought on international affairs. Watching Romney, Santorum and Gingrich had made me lose all faith.
Edit: Whoops, and regarding the link, I was really just looking for the video, so after I posted it, I realized the site was full of a bunch of horsecrap commentary so I edited it out and replaced it with a link to the CNN page which is much more informative anyway.
[quote name='berzirk']The guy talked about how the US is no longer the Global Superpower we once were, yet many of our decision makers try to act like we still have that power. He goes on to talk about the complete and total lack of awareness that the current GOP candidates have for foreign policy issues, and he calls them not just uninformed, but dangerous.
Talks about Israel v. Iran, Obama's foreign policy (which I actually thought he was a little too praising of, but this guy has so much experience inside of the issue, I've gotta weigh his view on it more than my own).
Just overall refreshing, accurate, non-grandiose view of the world. I really liked it. A pleasant reminder that there is still intelligent thought on international affairs. Watching Romney, Santorum and Gingrich had made me lose all faith.
Edit: Whoops, and regarding the link, I was really just looking for the video, so after I posted it, I realized the site was full of a bunch of horsecrap commentary so I edited it out and replaced it with a link to the CNN page which is much more informative anyway.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...I ended up just reading the transcript. I wasn't quite sure if you were saying that the guy on the blog was on point or Brzezinski, so I figured I'd ask first...ha! The comments on newsbusters are hilarious though.
Anywho, I don't think his stances are atypical of those on the left, but I read a couple articles about him being a hawkish Democrat. I'm going to read more about him though.
Talks about Israel v. Iran, Obama's foreign policy (which I actually thought he was a little too praising of, but this guy has so much experience inside of the issue, I've gotta weigh his view on it more than my own).
Just overall refreshing, accurate, non-grandiose view of the world. I really liked it. A pleasant reminder that there is still intelligent thought on international affairs. Watching Romney, Santorum and Gingrich had made me lose all faith.
Edit: Whoops, and regarding the link, I was really just looking for the video, so after I posted it, I realized the site was full of a bunch of horsecrap commentary so I edited it out and replaced it with a link to the CNN page which is much more informative anyway.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...I ended up just reading the transcript. I wasn't quite sure if you were saying that the guy on the blog was on point or Brzezinski, so I figured I'd ask first...ha! The comments on newsbusters are hilarious though.
Anywho, I don't think his stances are atypical of those on the left, but I read a couple articles about him being a hawkish Democrat. I'm going to read more about him though.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
I think if Romney doesn't win the Nomination it says more about him than it does Santorum. It says a lot by not being able to install faith in your base. On the flip side, Santorum is scaring the out of a lot of people on the right, myself included, because of the shit he's saying. It doesn't sound like he's learned anything from his loss in 2006 in PA. He's a PR nightmare waiting to happen.
out of a lot of people on the right, myself included, because of the shit he's saying. It doesn't sound like he's learned anything from his loss in 2006 in PA. He's a PR nightmare waiting to happen.
bread's done