The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='MSI Magus']I am not in the middle I am to the far left. I just do not believe in vilifying the other side to try and make my side look better, personal responsibility to an extent and I believe in compromise(real compromise, not this crap Dems are doing recently) to get deals done during critical times. Again you are just so far left that you cant see anything but your narrow world view. I also would like to point out that you love to sit on your throne shooting everyone down that does not believe what you do, but its rare you actually seem to post anything that actually puts your own solutions out there. Must be hard living in a world where all you ever have to do is tell others they are wrong in some smart ass way.[/QUOTE]
I don't villify anyone to make my side look better, I do it just to make the other side see how dumb they are! I don't really care how "my side" looks because facts are facts.

Oh, and please tell me about how far left I am and how my worldview is so narrow because I focus on systems instead of individuals. I must live in bizarroland or something.:dunce:

After that, then you can go into why your form of leftism is better than my form of leftism other than using nebulous language. Like actually examine your ideology instead of parroting how far left I am and how crazy I am for being so far left. Give me something with some nuance.
 
[quote name='Clak']You've read this, haven't you?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. I don't like it either, but it's becoming more and more obvious to me that once someone has made up their mind, facts can't change much. That doesn't mean their minds can't be changed, just that they can't be changed by telling them the cold, hard facts.[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if people need a "hook" to draw then in.;)
 
[quote name='Clak']You've read this, haven't you?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. I don't like it either, but it's becoming more and more obvious to me that once someone has made up their mind, facts can't change much. That doesn't mean their minds can't be changed, just that they can't be changed by telling them the cold, hard facts.[/QUOTE]

researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation

This statement as well as numerous others again show that the biggest focus of this test was on political partisans. Regardless, do I believe people easily change their mind when presented with facts? Nope. Do I believe its a guarantee or something that all people can do? Nope. But do I believe we should try before fighting dirty...of course!

I believe that if facts are presented in the right way, if you first listen to their side of the story and respect them then you can change SOME peoples minds. I realize that far too many people are not willing to listen to the facts, shit iv got tons of people like this in my family. Its not just politics its also things like how people pay their bills, religion or even things as silly as food and video games. I recognize that people will go out of their way to keep their own narrow world view. My wifes mother is once again a great example. My wife recently asked my mother in law why she talks to everyone about religion but me. I thought it would be because she perceived me as hostile about the subject(which Im not, but my wife is so I get lumped with her)and she actually admitted its because she knows I am more educated then her on her own religion which scares her. My mother in law is terrified of talking to me about the subject because she does not want to change her mind, she would rather live in her small little world. Most of us are like this about many subjects.

Thing is that I believe first off its just certain subjects, second off its that the facts are rarely presented like steak and lobster, instead they are shoved down peoples throats like a wife feeding the kids last weeks left overs ;( I believe that is the problem. People either do not even try and list the facts or they force them down each others throats. I changed my wife's mind on Religion and many philosophical subjects when we met, I have changed my brothers views on gays, I have changed my fathers views on Muslims. We can change people, it is just picking and choosing our battles and not resorting to war until its necessary. Liberals have not exactly tried fighting with facts in any sensible way since FDR...so I do not feel its right to fight dirty like Republicans do.

Sorry for yet another rant, I never intend these, I just truely am not good at keeping things short.

Edit - One last thing. Id like to point out that the media rarely gets behind the facts either. Sensationalism sells, thus a big part of the problem is the media calling Republicans on their bull shit.
 
Favorite moment:
- When they asked Bachmann if she'd be submissive to her husband if she was President.

Runner up:
- When Santorum said that if a woman gets raped, she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

Honorable mentions:
- Romney said that he wouldn't extend unemployment benefits and that all workers should have a self-funded unemployment account

- Gingrich wants loyalty tests

- Bachmann said that anyone labeled a terrorist and undocumented immigrants don't have any rights under law.

- Huntsman said that he's for civil unions.

Summary:
LOLOLOLZ

edit: Almost forgot that someone said that doctors that perform abortions should be prosecuted for murder.
 
Here's where I'm confused.

Let's start with the obvious premise: Obama is crazy beatable in 2012. He is Jimmy Carter in 1979 personified.

But look at the 8 people who were in the debate tonight. The ones who can't win are fucking astonishingly off the mark. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul all have no chance in fucking hell of capturing the fickle, bitchy, stupid independent voters (let's be honest, they are not intelligent, they're indecisive pricks).

Three are left: Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman. Romney alienates the far, far right because he's a Mormon and therefore "weird" (so much so even Obama is joining in on that trope). Pawlenty and Huntsman simply lack the charisma that Reagan did when he defeated Carter in 1980. And they are both opposites - Pawlenty more far right conservative, and Huntsman very moderate. So Huntsman will die from a lack of funding from far-right batshit organizations and he will die from early closed primary elections. And Pawlenty, again, won't do enough to motivate the middle to vote for him. They may hate Obama, but like me, their plans for November 2012 are to sit at home and fuck off instead of vote.

So, from a GOP standpoint, how do you make one of these chowderheads electable? These people all look so eminently beatable. Also, don't bring Rick Perry in yet. The US will not elect another undereducated dumbfuck facist Texas governor.
 
I guess if you spend enough money, and pass enough voter supression laws, the actual electability of your dude matters less and less, until it matters none? i.e. the Paul Weyrich strategy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's where I'm confused.

Let's start with the obvious premise: Obama is crazy beatable in 2012. He is Jimmy Carter in 1979 personified.

But look at the 8 people who were in the debate tonight. The ones who can't win are fucking astonishingly off the mark. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul all have no chance in fucking hell of capturing the fickle, bitchy, stupid independent voters (let's be honest, they are not intelligent, they're indecisive pricks).

Three are left: Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman. Romney alienates the far, far right because he's a Mormon and therefore "weird" (so much so even Obama is joining in on that trope). Pawlenty and Huntsman simply lack the charisma that Reagan did when he defeated Carter in 1980. And they are both opposites - Pawlenty more far right conservative, and Huntsman very moderate. So Huntsman will die from a lack of funding from far-right batshit organizations and he will die from early closed primary elections. And Pawlenty, again, won't do enough to motivate the middle to vote for him. They may hate Obama, but like me, their plans for November 2012 are to sit at home and fuck off instead of vote.

So, from a GOP standpoint, how do you make one of these chowderheads electable? These people all look so eminently beatable. Also, don't bring Rick Perry in yet. The US will not elect another undereducated dumbfuck facist Texas governor.[/QUOTE]

Paul's strength is actually his support from people outside the GOP, only Romney comes close to his levels of support in those areas. His issue is getting GOP support. If Paul somehow managed to make it through the field, Obama would either have to run way left, or risk America seeing him for what he is, a corporatist merchant of death.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Paul's strength is actually his support from people outside the GOP, only Romney comes close to his levels of support in those areas. His issue is getting GOP support. If Paul somehow managed to make it through the field, Obama would either have to run way left, or risk America seeing him for what he is, a corporatist merchant of death.[/QUOTE]

+1 for Ron Paul
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

But look at the 8 people who were in the debate tonight. The ones who can't win are fucking astonishingly off the mark. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul all have no chance in fucking hell of capturing the fickle, bitchy, stupid independent voters (let's be honest, they are not intelligent, they're indecisive pricks).

[/QUOTE]

Awwww, come on now, I'm an independent. I just don't really being tied to one particular party, even though I'm fairly liberal leaning on most issues.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's where I'm confused.

Let's start with the obvious premise: Obama is crazy beatable in 2012. He is Jimmy Carter in 1979 personified.

But look at the 8 people who were in the debate tonight. The ones who can't win are fucking astonishingly off the mark. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul all have no chance in fucking hell of capturing the fickle, bitchy, stupid independent voters (let's be honest, they are not intelligent, they're indecisive pricks).

Three are left: Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman. Romney alienates the far, far right because he's a Mormon and therefore "weird" (so much so even Obama is joining in on that trope). Pawlenty and Huntsman simply lack the charisma that Reagan did when he defeated Carter in 1980. And they are both opposites - Pawlenty more far right conservative, and Huntsman very moderate. So Huntsman will die from a lack of funding from far-right batshit organizations and he will die from early closed primary elections. And Pawlenty, again, won't do enough to motivate the middle to vote for him. They may hate Obama, but like me, their plans for November 2012 are to sit at home and fuck off instead of vote.

So, from a GOP standpoint, how do you make one of these chowderheads electable? These people all look so eminently beatable. Also, don't bring Rick Perry in yet. The US will not elect another undereducated dumbfuck facist Texas governor.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

Obama should be Jimmy Carter, but he's probably going to end up being Bill Clinton and getting re-elected despite a midterm swing to the right (and move to the center by him) simply because the republicans don't have a decent candidate to put against him.

None of the candidates appeal to both the far right base and independents as you note. And Obama will kill any of these people on the campaign trail and in debates etc. when we get to that point.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's where I'm confused.

Let's start with the obvious premise: Obama is crazy beatable in 2012. He is Jimmy Carter in 1979 personified.

But look at the 8 people who were in the debate tonight. The ones who can't win are fucking astonishingly off the mark. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul all have no chance in fucking hell of capturing the fickle, bitchy, stupid independent voters (let's be honest, they are not intelligent, they're indecisive pricks).

Three are left: Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman. Romney alienates the far, far right because he's a Mormon and therefore "weird" (so much so even Obama is joining in on that trope). Pawlenty and Huntsman simply lack the charisma that Reagan did when he defeated Carter in 1980. And they are both opposites - Pawlenty more far right conservative, and Huntsman very moderate. So Huntsman will die from a lack of funding from far-right batshit organizations and he will die from early closed primary elections. And Pawlenty, again, won't do enough to motivate the middle to vote for him. They may hate Obama, but like me, their plans for November 2012 are to sit at home and fuck off instead of vote.

So, from a GOP standpoint, how do you make one of these chowderheads electable? These people all look so eminently beatable. Also, don't bring Rick Perry in yet. The US will not elect another undereducated dumbfuck facist Texas governor.[/QUOTE]

Interesting analysis.

What you may not know, that is also interesting, is that Huntsman is also Mormon. So is Harry Reid (but I don't think he's ever been called weird for it).
 
Being Mormon isn't as much an issue for a democrat.

It's a problem for republicans as it hurts them among the religious right, so they really have to dominate the independent vote to have a chance.
 
I'm a little disappointed that no one asked Romney about his time at Bain, when he was firing a Mittload of American workers. THey asked Jon Huntsman about creating jobs in China, which needed to be asked, but someone really needs to talk to Romney about his 'success' as a CEO.

Definitely was somewhat impressed by Huntsman's defense of civil unions.
[quote name='dohdough']
- Bachmann said that anyone labeled a terrorist and undocumented immigrants don't have any rights under law.[/QUOTE]

I loved Paul's response to Bachmann on that one. She sure is a small gummint conservative, letting the government label people terrorists with no oversight whatsoever, isnt she?

I heart Ron Paul's foreign policy/civil liberties policy in a room like that, seriously. You can bet the majority of the people in that room were cheering on every one of Bush's expansions of fed'l gov't to protect us from the murslims. Now they hate big gummint!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']I'm a little disappointed that no one asked Romney about his time at Bain, when he was firing a Mittload of American workers. THey asked Jon Huntsman about creating jobs in China, which needed to be asked, but someone really needs to talk to Romney about his 'success' as a CEO.

Definitely was somewhat impressed by Huntsman's defense of civil unions.


I loved Paul's response to Bachmann on that one. She sure is a small gummint conservative, letting the government label people terrorists with no oversight whatsoever, isnt she?

I heart Ron Paul's foreign policy/civil liberties policy in a room like that, seriously. You can bet the majority of the people in that room were cheering on every one of Bush's expansions of fed'l gov't to protect us from the murslims. Now they hate big gummint![/QUOTE]

Dohdough actually typed the quote attributed to me, but I agree with you. Her rhetoric and actual policy action are as opposed as TARP-begging Paul Ryan. Aside from her moronic blathering about liberty, freedom, and small government (while supporting Bush/Obama foreign policy and civil liberty abuses), she voted for Ryan's House budget, which called for raising the debt ceiling for something like thirty years.

It's a shame that Santorum and Huntsman were in the debate instead of Gary Johnson, but that dual split screen of Santorum/Santorum while he was wailing about states all across the country trying to institute polygamist marriage was worth having him in.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Paul's strength is actually his support from people outside the GOP[/QUOTE]

Who are these people you're talking about? The fervent Ron Paul supporters? The Randians/objectivists/monetary draconians/isolationists? Those aren't people who would vote for a leftist candidate anyway, so the point (and perhaps this is what you're saying) is motivating them to show up in the polls versus sitting at home.

There was a phenomenal bit of electoral analysis I read in the wake of the WI recall vote this week that really showed that electoral politics are about who does and does not show up (i.e., so many first-time voters helped put Obama in office that hardly follow politics that the GOP gains since then, including this past Tuesday, aren't necessarily signs of people supporting GOP policies more in the light of Obama, but GOP voters being more motivated to get out and vote. You can really see this when you compare the disconnect b/w public opinion polls, which eviscerate GOP policy, with vote outcomes, where GOP guys get elected).

[quote name='docvinh']Awwww, come on now, I'm an independent. I just don't really being tied to one particular party, even though I'm fairly liberal leaning on most issues.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about broad patterns, not individuals. Like if I were to talk about conservatives - they're not all villains or idiots, but those two words certainly cover the bulk of them indeed. Please don't take it personal, most independent voters are fickle and vote based on contradictory ideals. They're not very bright and don't make up their mind until the last minute - usually basing their voting decision off of something quite inane.

[quote name='dmaul1114']None of the candidates appeal to both the far right base and independents as you note. And Obama will kill any of these people on the campaign trail and in debates etc. when we get to that point.[/QUOTE]

Can they get Obama voters to stay home? I think convincing progressives to do so is easy enough.

Also, Obama doesn't need to move to the center. He is the center; it's just the rhetoric that has framed moderate policies as "socialism" or "liberalism." The benchmark of his liberal policy record is what the Heritage Foundation wanted to see in the US 20 years ago. Just sayin'.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Interesting analysis.

What you may not know, that is also interesting, is that Huntsman is also Mormon. So is Harry Reid (but I don't think he's ever been called weird for it).[/QUOTE]

Hmm. That's right, I did hear that yesterday, my mistake. While I doubt you'll hear many voters outright say that they will never vote for a mormon, still an astonishingly high number will openly do so. In Romney's case, he has to defend his record over overseeing MA's health care plan as well as gay marriage (wasn't he governor when it passed?). Voters need to find a proxy as to why they don't like Huntsman's mormonism; most voters don't know who he is. Hmph; maybe they'll turn the fact that he's fluent in Chinese and served under President Obama (i.e., job experience and biparisanship) into a means of showing that he's ill prepared to be the GOP's nominee.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Can they get Obama voters to stay home? I think convincing progressives to do so is easy enough.
[/quote]

Yeah, progressives are easy as they'll capitulate and vote for him as the "lesser of two evils."

They key will be if they can do ok with independents--they won't get nearly as many as last time, but can he get enough? And whether they can get the high turnout among young people and urban blacks again.

Also, Obama doesn't need to move to the center. He is the center; it's just the rhetoric that has framed moderate policies as "socialism" or "liberalism." The benchmark of his liberal policy record is what the Heritage Foundation wanted to see in the US 20 years ago. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I meant that he already has moved way to the center from what he campaigned on in 2008. Much like Clinton did in his first term--moved way to the center after the failed health care reform effort and the mid term change in congress. He had pretty low approval ratings around 2 years into his first term and moved to the center and they went up and he got re-elected. There's a lot of parallels there--read a good article comparing them on that front the other day--maybe in the Washington Post, but not sure as it's been a few days.

The main difference for Obama is that he has a lot more obstacles with the economy still sucking. He'd be screwed if the republicans had any candidates who could appeal to both their base and independents.
 
I disagree with you Myke. I think even though the conservative base has serious concerns about Romney that they will fall in line with the guy. They have been feed so many lies by Fox news and the right that they just have such a deep hatred and fear of Obama and the Democrats that it wont matter.

That just leaves the uneducated masses. Those morons again fall for whatever BS they are fed and more important vote based on the economy, jobs and just a general perception of how things are going. I think things are still up in the air at this point since its so early and so many things could happen, but if things continue at the current pace I think its Romney's to lose(both in the Primary and general election).
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I disagree with you Myke. I think even though the conservative base has serious concerns about Romney that they will fall in line with the guy.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is the Tea Party types. I can't see many of them voting for Romney. His health care plan while governor, gay marriage etc. will really kill him in that area.

And the extreme religious right who will never vote for a mormon (or any non-Protestant pretty much). Though honestly that's mainly only relevant in bible belt states that almost always go Republican anyway. Could maybe make a difference in a place like North Carolina I suppose, but not too many battle ground states where that would have an impact. The tea party factor will be much more relevant in some competitive states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida etc.

On the tea party front, it will be interesting to see if someone ends up running on their own as a Tea Party candidate or an Independent. i.e. Bachmann, or even Palin etc. I'd guess not as even those morons are smart enough to know that doing so would split the republican vote and assure Obama's re-election. But who knows with those yokels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure that those groups are going to withhold their vote from Romney to the extent you're suggesting when the alternative is SOCIALISM. Could be though. Its hard to predict crazy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is the Tea Party types. I can't see many of them voting for Romney. His health care plan while governor, gay marriage etc. will really kill him in that area.

And the extreme religious right who will never vote for a mormon (or any non-Protestant pretty much). Though honestly that's mainly only relevant in bible belt states that almost always go Republican anyway. Could maybe make a difference in a place like North Carolina I suppose, but not too many battle ground states where that would have an impact. The tea party factor will be much more relevant in some competitive states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida etc.

On the tea party front, it will be interesting to see if someone ends up running on their own as a Tea Party candidate or an Independent. i.e. Bachmann, or even Palin etc. I'd guess not as even those morons are smart enough to know that doing so would split the republican vote and assure Obama's re-election. But who knows with those yokels.[/QUOTE]

As someone that can probably be classified as "one of those tea party folks", I'd have to say your assessment is right.

It seems some of you (not you, dmaul) are losing sight of the fact that for many people this is not about "facts" and R vs D. This political war is becoming more and more about big vs small government. It's not a war of what the problems are, but how much (if it all) the government should be involved in fixing them.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'm not sure that those groups are going to withhold their vote from Romney to the extent you're suggesting when the alternative is SOCIALISM. Could be though. Its hard to predict crazy.[/QUOTE]

My point is the "socialism!" argument will be hard for Romney to make given his MA health care plan etc.

Of all the republican candidates, he'll have the hardest time campaigning on a "small government" platform. So that will hurt him with the tea party supporters. And being Mormon will hurt him in the bible belt--though again most of those states will go republican anyway even if some stay home for that reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think "crazy" is seriously thinking about not voting period. People will be increasingly pissed about an ineffective process that ensures two pro-corporate parties hold power.

Hopefully, it all leads to a multi-party system where America is truly represented. It will probably lead to the the very wealthy being in charge with the cloak of true representation.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It seems some of you (not you, dmaul) are losing sight of the fact that for many people this is not about "facts" and R vs D. This political war is becoming more and more about big vs small government. It's not a war of what the problems are, but how much (if it all) the government should be involved in fixing them.[/QUOTE]

That's ideological blather, though.

We have a number of tea party folks in government right now who refuse to even consider the idea of increasing revenues. They're pinned down by an inconsistent and silly belief system. There's something wrong there, honestly. You have elected people who are unwilling to engage in compromise at all, and are unwilling to use a necessary tool to develop a balanced budget. They are not willing to be politicians, they are not willing to govern - and you praise them for it. Imagine if us crazy progressives elected a small but vocal/powerful bloc to congress who refused to cut any spending, and would filibuster/block/hold any and every bill that attempted to do so. This is the kind of "we want to be in the game, but we don't want to play the game" person you have helped elect to office.

1) deficits matter
2) taxes are too high
3) when raising taxes is proposed as a means to cure (1), see (2).
4) (3) only applies when talking about individuals earning $250K & up per year as well as corporations.

I don't disagree with you about "big vs small gov't," but that's a stupid argument. We might as well be arguing "tastes great" or "less filling," because both are as relevant to the fiscal crisis we're in.

Borrowing rates are crazy low right now, and we have elected (and you support) myopic simpletons who can't get any intellectually deeper than "spending too high, derp." Which is combined with expensive, frivolous, and wasteful ideas like "drug test welfare recipients," "eliminate NPR," "defund ACORN," etc. The people you support are waging ideological warfare that has zero net effect on spending or the deficit, displays a stunning incoherence of fiscal policy (in addition to an incredible overt unwillingness to develop an understanding), and yet you support them because your gut, and not your data, tells you that taxes are too high. You believe in trickle-down despite all evidence to the contrary. You suddenly are freaked out about the deficit, having *no* firm foundation on which to base your fears - you are so afraid that our debt will lead to a financial catastrophe that the people you elect to office were willing to *create* a financial catastrophe in order to prove their point.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's ideological blather, though.

We have a number of tea party folks in government right now who refuse to even consider the idea of increasing revenues. They're pinned down by an inconsistent and silly belief system.

1) deficits matter
2) taxes are too high
3) when raising taxes is proposed as a means to cure (1), see (2).
4) (3) only applies when talking about individuals earning $250K & up per year as well as corporations.

I don't disagree with you about "big vs small gov't," but that's a stupid argument. We might as well be arguing "tastes great" or "less filling," because both are as relevant to the fiscal crisis we're in.

Borrowing rates are crazy low right now, and we have elected (and you support) myopic simpletons who can't get any intellectually deeper than "spending too high, derp." Which is combined with expensive, frivolous, and wasteful ideas like "drug test welfare recipients," "eliminate NPR," "defund ACORN," etc. The people you support are waging ideological warfare that has zero net effect on spending or the deficit, displays a stunning incoherence of fiscal policy (in addition to an incredible overt unwillingness to develop an understanding), and yet you support them because your gut, and not your data, tells you that taxes are too high. You believe in trickle-down despite all evidence to the contrary. You suddenly are freaked out about the deficit, having *no* firm foundation on which to base your fears - you are so afraid that our debt will lead to a financial catastrophe that the people you elect to office were willing to *create* a financial catastrophe in order to prove their point.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! Plus why is it that these "small government" politicians always seem to receive farm and other subsidies and tax benefits directly from the government. The people themselves are no better either since they generally are proponents of medicare/SSI. All of them are also more then thrilled with the government stepping in to celebrate Christmas or deny gays marriage.

I have only meet a few people in my life that are actual proponents of small government. Generally people that want small government mean "government that supports you needs to get smaller, but keep your damn hands off the things I personally benefit from". To sum it up in 3 short words. They are hypocrites.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
We have a number of tea party folks in government right now who refuse to even consider the idea of increasing revenues. They're pinned down by an inconsistent and silly belief system. There's something wrong there, honestly. You have elected people who are unwilling to engage in compromise at all, and are unwilling to use a necessary tool to develop a balanced budget.[/QUOTE]

Case in point, apparently in the debate last night the republican candidates were asked if they'd support a bill that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in revenue increases and they ALL said no. :roll:
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Dohdough actually typed the quote attributed to me, but I agree with you.[/QUOTE]
Huh? I was talking about things Republican candidates said at the debate?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Case in point, apparently in the debate last night the republican candidates were asked if they'd support a bill that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in revenue increases and they ALL said no. :roll:[/QUOTE]
To be honest, that didn't even register on the crazy scale last night. I can't wait for the next debate though. With Perry in the race, it's going to look like an insane asylum.:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Case in point, apparently in the debate last night the republican candidates were asked if they'd support a bill that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in revenue increases and they ALL said no. :roll:[/QUOTE]

jesus christ. jesus fucking christ.
 
http://original.antiwar.com/engelhar...curity-budget/

I would advocate cutting our foreign policy down to $285 billion a year, immediately; $100 billion for actual defense and veterans programs, and $185 as interest payment related to past borrowing for military adventurism. That is a cut of $1 trillion a year. From one area of the budget. And the $285 billion would shrink as we pay down the debt, and our interest payments grow smaller. To say nothing of the shrinking veterans costs from not having men and women getting their limbs blown up and minds scarred from participating in wars of aggression.

War on Drugs - gone, another $15 billion saved, plus untold amount of unseen economic activity currently sitting in prison
Depts. of Agriculture (leave food programs for needy), Commerce, Education, Energy (leave nuclear arms maintenance), Labor (leave 26-week unemployment benefits) - corporatism sucks, and this saves $253 billion
NASA - gone, $20 billion
Foreign aid - taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to rich people in desolate countries is AWESOME - $21 billion

$1.309 trillion cut from the budget, and I didn't touch the big 3. I could easily finish the job while leaving SS, Medicare and Medicaid completely alone (would still prefer to institute means testing for long term viability). To act as though the deficit could not be solved without raising taxes is to hold strong-handed support for the empire and banking cartel.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's ideological blather, though.

We have a number of tea party folks in government right now who refuse to even consider the idea of increasing revenues. They're pinned down by an inconsistent and silly belief system. There's something wrong there, honestly. You have elected people who are unwilling to engage in compromise at all, and are unwilling to use a necessary tool to develop a balanced budget. They are not willing to be politicians, they are not willing to govern - and you praise them for it. Imagine if us crazy progressives elected a small but vocal/powerful bloc to congress who refused to cut any spending, and would filibuster/block/hold any and every bill that attempted to do so. This is the kind of "we want to be in the game, but we don't want to play the game" person you have helped elect to office.

1) deficits matter
2) taxes are too high
3) when raising taxes is proposed as a means to cure (1), see (2).
4) (3) only applies when talking about individuals earning $250K & up per year as well as corporations.

I don't disagree with you about "big vs small gov't," but that's a stupid argument. We might as well be arguing "tastes great" or "less filling," because both are as relevant to the fiscal crisis we're in.

Borrowing rates are crazy low right now, and we have elected (and you support) myopic simpletons who can't get any intellectually deeper than "spending too high, derp." Which is combined with expensive, frivolous, and wasteful ideas like "drug test welfare recipients," "eliminate NPR," "defund ACORN," etc. The people you support are waging ideological warfare that has zero net effect on spending or the deficit, displays a stunning incoherence of fiscal policy (in addition to an incredible overt unwillingness to develop an understanding), and yet you support them because your gut, and not your data, tells you that taxes are too high. You believe in trickle-down despite all evidence to the contrary. You suddenly are freaked out about the deficit, having *no* firm foundation on which to base your fears - you are so afraid that our debt will lead to a financial catastrophe that the people you elect to office were willing to *create* a financial catastrophe in order to prove their point.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm going to ask you to TRY and look at it from my point of view.
I firmly believe the government needs to be reduced AT LEAST 40%, including military. I strongly believe that being too large is the center of most of our problems.

Ok, so as extreme as you think that makes me, try to imagine that as a starting point.

Why would I entertain any notion of increasing revenue? It's not even about whether we can it's about whether we should. Why should I support any candidate that will entertain a revenue increase compromise?

When we've cut government spending by about 25%, and you can still prove that we need more revenue - then I might be willing to talk about tax increases.

When I've maxed out all my credit cards, it's irresponsible of me to be trying to figure out how to get more. The responsible thing to do is to start cutting my expenses, luxuries, and just make sure I can feed and house myself. I expect the same of government.

So yeah, I guess that makes me a hard-line nutter around these parts but that's largely why I've bowed out of these discussions the past year or so - because what I would consider middle ground most of you would consider unimaginable.

But I'm just voicing my opinion, because it's an opinion and all opinions deserve to be heard. I'm not here to convince people that they should think like me.
 
I think many things need cut for sure, namely defense, various subsidies etc.

But I don't see how it's feasible to cut government in total by that much when the US is already falling behind many other countries in education, research and development etc. It's going to take major public re-investment in education and the sciences if American wants to head into the 22nd century still considered a leader in innovation and the world economy.

I don't think the problem is so much the amount of spending. Its:

1. What it's being spent on.
2. Continually raising spending without increasing revenues.
 
Ron Paul did well yesterday. Its to bad most Republicans will likely just pick Rick Perry cause he is true 100% establishment. He is pro NAFTA, GATT, expanding the patriot act, expanding the TSA, expanding NSA CIA FBI..., expanding military funding, pushing for new wars, and finishing and expanding the NAFTA super higher way through Texas and the rest of the nation.
 
The problem with Perry is I don't think he'll play well outside of Texas and the bible belt states etc.

i.e. he won't do well in the battle ground states. There was an article I read the other day that had comments from some Republican party officials in Ohio and Pennsylvania and they were saying he didn't have a lot of support among their base as they were weary of Texas politicians after the Bushes.

It's hard to see him taking places like Ohio or Pennsylvania or Virginia--and maybe even places like Indiana.


It's just odd that the Republican field is so weak. With the economy sucking, Obama is very vulnerable but know one has joined the fray that is a clear front runner who can bring in all the parts of the base needed to win. If the economy doesn't improve one of these guys may well beat him, but if it improves a bit by next fall I don't see any of these guys beating him. It will be closer than 2008, but I just don't see any of these contenders being able to win enough of the battleground states.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem with Perry is I don't think he'll play well outside of Texas and the bible belt states etc.

i.e. he won't do well in the battle ground states. There was an article I read the other day that had comments from some Republican party officials in Ohio and Pennsylvania and they were saying he didn't have a lot of support among their base as they were weary of Texas politicians after the Bushes.

It's hard to see him taking places like Ohio or Pennsylvania or Virginia--and maybe even places like Indiana.


It's just odd that the Republican field is so weak. With the economy sucking, Obama is very vulnerable but know one has joined the fray that is a clear front runner who can bring in all the parts of the base needed to win. If the economy doesn't improve one of these guys may well beat him, but if it improves a bit by next fall I don't see any of these guys beating him. It will be closer than 2008, but I just don't see any of these contenders being able to win enough of the battleground states.[/QUOTE]
I think you and mykevermin underestimate the sheer stupidity and insanity of the US electorate.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']When I've maxed out all my credit cards, it's irresponsible of me to be trying to figure out how to get more. The responsible thing to do is to start cutting my expenses, luxuries, and just make sure I can feed and house myself. I expect the same of government.[/QUOTE]

Beginning on January 20, 2009, right? Don't remember the issue of 'out of control government spending' really permeating Republican circles until Obama became President. Feel free to show me that spending and deficits were huge issues during the Bush years.
 
I think Rick Perry's defining moment was a few months ago in Texas when he came out and said he would kick the TSA out of Texas (it was nothing more than a big old stunt). The state legislator came out and the house voted yes on a bill everyone voted yes in it in the house. Then he got the Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to kill the bill before it made a senate vote (its rumored he did it cause he never thought it would have even got enough votes).
 
[quote name='dohdough']I think you and mykevermin underestimate the sheer stupidity and insanity of the US electorate.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. That Bush got re-elected after his awful first term is evidence enough of that.

This isn't a matter of the electorate being stupid, it's a matter of the republican/right base being much more divided now with the rise of the tea party.

Bush didn't have to worry about the Tea Party types while he was expanding government size and power and spending. And he's a born-again christian, so he had the religious right in his back pocket.

The current crop of candidates have to appeal to the Tea Party types, the religious right, and do well among independents to beat Obama.

And that's a tough task. Appealing to the Tea Party will lose moderate independents--and vice versa. Tea Party types aren't going to go for a Romney due to Romney care etc. Independents aren't going to go for a tea party favorite like Bachman or Palin or Paul.

The Mormon thing hurts Romney and Huntsman with the religious right, and they'll both struggle with the tea partiers due to health care and working under Obama respectively.

Perry has the best shot at getting the base and tea party behind him, but everything I've seen points to his support not being strong in the battleground states. But if he can build that up, separate himself for Bush (who polls show that most still blame for the economy) then he may be the biggest threat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']Beginning on January 20, 2009, right? Don't remember the issue of 'out of control government spending' really permeating Republican circles until Obama became President. Feel free to show me that spending and deficits were huge issues during the Bush years.[/QUOTE]

Don't bother to make sense or adhere to reality.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not at all. That Bush got re-elected after his awful first term is evidence enough of that.

This isn't a matter of the electorate being stupid, it's a matter of the republican/right base being much more divided now with the rise of the tea party.

Bush didn't have to worry about the Tea Party types while he was expanding government size and power and spending. And he's a born-again christian, so he had the religious right in his back pocket.

The current crop of candidates have to appeal to the Tea Party types, the religious right, and do well among independents to beat Obama.

And that's a tough task. Appealing to the Tea Party will lose moderate independents--and vice versa. Tea Party types aren't going to go for a Romney due to Romney care etc. Independents aren't going to go for a tea party favorite like Bachman or Palin or Paul.

The Mormon thing hurts Romney and Huntsman with the religious right, and they'll both struggle with the tea partiers due to health care and working under Obama respectively.

Perry has the best shot at getting the base and tea party behind him, but everything I've seen points to his support not being strong in the battleground states. But if he can build that up, separate himself for Bush (who polls show that most still blame for the economy) then he may be the biggest threat.[/QUOTE]
And you make very good points. There's a lot of pandering to that loud minority, but if all the polls are worth anything, they state that teabaggers will vote straight ticket Republican when pushed to a wall. I think they only won a couple seats(slight hyperbole;)) in 2010 and the craziest ones didn't even make it, beyond incumbent Bachmann.

I don't see the teabaggers going off on their own to form a seperate party with their own candidates like the Socialists, Greens, Communists, etc. In that context, the craziness that we're seeing on the field now will only go as far as the primaries because teabaggers will still vote establishment rather than vote for that Kenyan Marxist Communist Usurper Socialist baby-killer that kicks dogs. And they sure as hell won't be staying home.

Of course there'll still be some pandering, but nothing as close to what we saw last night...or at least I hope. I know this is a bit of a departure from the stupid/crazy angle, but even if the candidate is less than ideologically ideal, they'll still hold their noses and pull that lever. As weak as McCain was, he still got 48 million votes?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well I'm going to ask you to TRY and look at it from my point of view.
I firmly believe the government needs to be reduced AT LEAST 40%, including military. I strongly believe that being too large is the center of most of our problems.[/quote]

What do you base the 40% measurement on? If you're using numbers, then clearly you have researched a baseline in federal expenditures. You have discovered what the ideal size of government is, and can point to why it is more efficient and helpful at that size.

Or does the 40% number have no actual basis in reality, with you manufacturing it as a feel good number out of thin air?

Ok, so as extreme as you think that makes me, try to imagine that as a starting point.
Click to expand...

It's not extreme, but it is arbitrary and ideological. You do not have facts on your side.

Why would I entertain any notion of increasing revenue? It's not even about whether we can it's about whether we should. Why should I support any candidate that will entertain a revenue increase compromise?
Click to expand...

When you do not, you then restrict yourself to supporting candidates that aren't willing to govern. Who aren't willing to make concessions. Who are tied to belief systems, steadfast in their ways, and wholly unalterable by any presentations of fact or data. You're electing petulant children at that point, with the hope that they remain petulant children; people who want their dessert, who refuse to eat their vegetables to get their dessert, and yet still demand their dessert, claiming others as the oppressor if they do not, in fact, get their dessert.

Opposition to revenue increases, like everything else about you, is rooted in the *faith* that your belief system is how society works. Devoid of science, devoid of mathematics, devoid of proof. It is feel good mumbo jumbo. You practice politics the same way Christian Scientists practice medicine. Understand?

When we've cut government spending by about 25%, and you can still prove that we need more revenue - then I might be willing to talk about tax increases.
Click to expand...

More numbers. Wasn't it 40% before? Why 25% now? Why are you unwilling to spend more at a time, like now, when interest rates are ridiculously low? When we need to shore up our infrastructure to remain competitive in the global marketplace?

You're proving my point; your mind starts and stops at "spending high." You can't get beyond that hurdle; as you are unwilling to consider contextual variation. You are steadfast in your ways, relaying on the old "common sense" canard.

To you, borrowing money at a lower interest rate, or in this case, a negative interest rate, is never better than borrowing money at a higher interest rate. Borrowing bad, thrustbucket's brain is done.

When I've maxed out all my credit cards, it's irresponsible of me to be trying to figure out how to get more. The responsible thing to do is to start cutting my expenses, luxuries, and just make sure I can feed and house myself. I expect the same of government.
Click to expand...

Government is not your family, it is not a business. The debt limit is arbitrarily established and moved time and time again. This "credit card" metaphor truly exposes how shallow your thinking on this is.

So yeah, I guess that makes me a hard-line nutter around these parts but that's largely why I've bowed out of these discussions the past year or so - because what I would consider middle ground most of you would consider unimaginable.
Click to expand...

"Once I get everything I want, then we'll maybe talk about giving you a pittance of what you want" is not middle ground - yet you seem to be telling us that it is responsible and moderate to do so. You are a indeed a hard-line nutter in complete denial. At least I've always had the self-respect and vision to recognize how far to the left I am; you're just a simpleton with no deep sense of perspective such that you uncritically absorb every bit of blithering right wing idiocy as gospel truth. You accepted, uncritically, for instance (and continue to accept) that the health care policy proposed by The Heritage Foundation in 1993 and passed by Obama in 2010 is "socialism." That's not quite nutter. It's more like half nutter half village idiot.

But I'm just voicing my opinion, because it's an opinion and all opinions deserve to be heard. I'm not here to convince people that they should think like me.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. All opinions do not deserve to be heard. Birthers do not deserve to be heard. People unwilling to make the basest effort to make empirical decisions on policy do not deserve to be heard (that means people like you, who admit to basing virtually all their decisions on some vague demigod of uncritical socialized experience masquerading as a fairy tale you call "common sense," do not deserve to be heard). Someone who thinks spending is too high should be heard, after they've done their homework - not before. Someone who thinks "They Live" was a documentary does not deserve to be heard. And some crazed conspiracy theory Paulistinian does not deserve to be heard, like this guy:

[quote name='packerfan10']Ron Paul did well yesterday.

NAFTA super higher way through Texas and the rest of the nation.[/QUOTE]

riiiiiiiiiiiight. "Google building 7" much, friend?
 
What do you base the current spending measurement on? If you're using numbers, then clearly you have researched a baseline in federal expenditures. You have discovered what the ideal size of government is, and can point to why it is more efficient and helpful at that size.

Or does the current spending number have no actual basis in reality, with you manufacturing it as a feel good number out of thin air?

I thoroughly enjoyed the part where you say the debt isn't a problem we should be worried about. What if we balanced the deficit, and then went ahead and spent all the money we are currently spending on interest on whatever your little heart desires? Would that make you happy?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']riiiiiiiiiiiight. "Google building 7" much, friend?[/QUOTE]

Whatever Perry used eminent domain for goes by many names, but the criticism of using eminent domain for such a large area of land is valid.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Paul Krugman wrote a blog specifically about you guys today, as it turns out: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/the-cracked-conservative-mirror/[/QUOTE]

Going a long with the Krugman article is that the stimulus was never really a stimulus. I have heard so many conservatives tout "the Kensyian model has failed, just look at the stimulus". Yet they never even note that

1. Economists from the start said that the stimulus was to small to work.

2. A shit ton of the stimulus was tax cuts

3. The stimulus money was not even fully spent and what was spent went out slowly in little clumps. Instead of having one massive wave of spending that injected life in to the economy they tried to trickle it out. Just the other day on the Diane Rehmn show they were discussing how there are still tens(possibly hundreds I cant recall)of billions left unspent from the stimulus they would like to put in to infrastructure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top