View Full Version : GOP'ish candidates
TracyCoxx
05-21-2011, 07:52 PM
The Republicans aren't playing to win, they're playing to show. This is the weakest field of candidates in 50 years. It's obvious they're just trying to tie Obama's hands as much as they can. Bet the house on the Democrats in 2012.
Chichester, I saw your posting in Justice and wasn't sure how it fit in there, but it is a subject on its own that I'm concerned about. It's time to see if a GOP candidate that doesn't in some remote way relate back to Reagan, can win. And if ANY GOP candidate can't win against Obama the GOP really should pack it up and never show their face again, and the curse often attributed to Alexander Tytler has become a reality.
I think many of the current GOP candidates will have the same problem McCain had: Conservative voters were not impressed that McCain was conservative enough, so bizarrely they elected the most far left president the country has ever had.
The obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread will of course be obvious, but to the few conservatives out there, what do you think of this round of GOP candidates?
transjen
05-21-2011, 09:49 PM
I like Hunter as he seems to be some what in the middle but sadly i dout he'll make it past the first few primaries as he is not far enough on the right for most GOP primary voters
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
I've been reading articles about how the GOP is engaged in a Civil War. Romney and Gingrich both don't seem to have a problem with insurance mandates...So long as it's not passed by Democrats. This has alienated conservative TeaTards...These same extremists are pulling the party in a direction which is almost guaranteed to alienate moderate and independent voters.
The only reason I would vote in the Republican primary would be to elect the candidate Obama would stand the greatest chance of beating. Generally speaking, Republican policies make me vomit inside my mouth. But if I had to vote for one Republican, it'd probably be Ron Paul...And that vote would have little to do with Paul's chances of beating Obama.
Ron Paul is definitely an extremist wacko on some points...But I REALLY dig his ultra-libertarian view as it applies to civil liberties. The government has no business regulating abortion, gun rights, or what chemicals or drugs you put in your body. The fact that Paul wants to legalize all drugs is reason enough that I'd vote for him...And I don't even do drugs anymore...I just feel that strongly about how un-Constitutional the "War on Drugs" is. I also like his views on abolishing the Fed.
That said, Paul stands virtually no chance of being a contender. I doubt he'll pick up any states, but if this primary gives him a platform to share his views...That's good enough I suppose. Hopefully some of his libertarian views will help shape the GOP narrative.
TracyCoxx
05-21-2011, 11:57 PM
I've been reading articles about how the GOP is engaged in a Civil War. Romney and Gingrich both don't seem to have a problem with insurance mandates...So long as it's not passed by Democrats. This has alienated conservative TeaTards...These same extremists are pulling the party in a direction which is almost guaranteed to alienate moderate and independent voters.
The republicans are engaged in a civil war. And the reason is that they have become less and less conservative, hence the name of this thread. The big driver for the republican resurgence in the 2010 election was because of what you call "extremist TeaTards". They may be extreme to progressives, and to the current politicians calling themselves republicans, but I'm not sure what is so extreme about the Tea Party. They want to balance the budget? Shocking. What do you think is extreme about them?
Perhaps your perception of the Tea Party movement is tainted by CNN?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
I am sure I would be characterized by Tracy Coxx as one of "the obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread," but in fact I despise the Democrats and the Republicans, or -- as I like to call them -- the Republocrats. Nevertheless, anyone who thinks the Tea Party is a) a grassroots movement and b) that it's primary objective is to balance the budget is, quite frankly, a wishful-thinking simpleton (at best).
Tracy Coxx, I do give you credit for making the effort, in your first post, to forestall any critical discourse by those who don't agree with you. Unfortunately, there are no private threads on this site, so the "obligatory GOP haters" will be free to post in this one. And, yes, I know that's not exactly what you wrote -- and by admitting that, I hope you will feel that you don't need to make your obligatory post that seeks to deflect attention away from substance by claiming I put words in your mouth.
TracyCoxx
05-22-2011, 09:58 AM
I like Hunter as he seems to be some what in the middle but sadly i dout he'll make it past the first few primaries as he is not far enough on the right for most GOP primary voters
I haven't heard much about him, but what little I read seems to indicate he's far enough right for me. What do you know about him that most GOP primary voters wouldn't like?
I like Hunter as he seems to be some what in the middle but sadly i dout he'll make it past the first few primaries as he is not far enough on the right for most GOP primary voters
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
I believe you mean Huntsman.
I haven't heard much about him, but what little I read seems to indicate he's far enough right for me. What do you know about him that most GOP primary voters wouldn't like?
He'll probably not say batshit crap like Michelle Bachman.
Enoch Root
05-22-2011, 12:16 PM
He'll probably not say batshit crap like Michelle Bachman.
Is it a good enough post if I just say this made me laugh?
transjen
05-22-2011, 01:27 PM
I believe you mean Huntsman.
You maybe right, i never said i'd vote for him but the interview on CNN i saw on him he strikes me as a middle ground guy which perks my intrest
Now Tracy asked why i don't think primary voters will vote for him and the answer is he's a middle guy and would likely make deals of give and take which hard core GOP voters can't stand they have the tude of our way or the highway
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
You maybe right, i never said i'd vote for him but the interview on CNN i saw on him he strikes me as a middle ground guy which perks my intrest
Now Tracy asked why i don't think primary voters will vote for him and the answer is he's a middle guy and would likely make deals of give and take which hard core GOP voters can't stand they have the tude of our way or the highway
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Jon Huntsman -- former governor of Utah and Obama's former ambassador to China.
Enoch Root
05-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Jon Huntsman -- former governor of Utah and Obama's former ambassador to China.
Oh shit China? Well there you go smc. Obama's giving the country away to China and Huntsman helped him--yup only reason to have an ambassador. Good riddance to them both.
transjen
05-22-2011, 01:49 PM
One thing you can count on is when all is said and done the GOP voters will always pick the worst canadate aviable so in 12 don't be surpised to see Palin/Bachman ticket :eek:
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
Oh shit China? Well there you go smc. Obama's giving the country away to China and Huntsman helped him--yup only reason to have an ambassador. Good riddance to them both.
OMG! He may be the actual "Manchurian candidate"!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/jon-huntsman-praised-by-c_n_851926.html
Enoch Root
05-22-2011, 02:04 PM
One thing you can count on is when all is said and done the GOP voters will always pick the worst canadate aviable so in 12 don't be surpised to see Palin/Bachman ticket :eek:
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
And the skies did part whence a dragon emerged from the turmoil. Two heads had she and they called themselves Palin/Bachmann and they sung the horn of the end of the world.
And the skies did part whence a dragon emerged from the turmoil. Two heads had she and they called themselves Palin/Bachmann and they sung the horn of the end of the world.
Say all you want about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, Enoch Root, but the question on everybody's mind is this: If they had cocks and waved them around in your face seductively, would you suck?
Enoch Root
05-22-2011, 02:11 PM
Say all you want about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, Enoch Root, but the question on everybody's mind is this: If they had cocks and waved them around in your face seductively, would you suck?
Yes but let's put it this way: I would fuck them but I wouldn't let them fuck me.
No wait let me correct this: what I would actually like to do is fuck Tina Fey imitating Palin--with a cock. I have a weakness for funny women.
Chichester
05-22-2011, 02:26 PM
You're going to see several smart Republicans pass on this election and wait for 2016. Obama's going to raise taxes and piss off everyone in his second term because that's best for America. But this is clearly Obama's time right now.
Enoch Root
05-22-2011, 02:29 PM
You're going to see several smart Republicans pass on this election and wait for 2016. Obama's going to raise taxes and piss off everyone in his second term because that's best for America. But this is clearly Obama's time right now.
Not so sure about Obama raising taxes. And even if he does raising it to Clinton era levels is not good enough.
Anyone who thinks we can cut our way out of our deficit without raising taxes clearly doesn't have their head screwed on right. I mean, yes, theoretically we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Defense and not have a debt problem. But I think the middle class would rather pay higher taxes than see that happen. I make $8.50/hr (so I'm not even middle class based on my income), but I'd gladly pay a few percent more of my income if it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare would be there for me and future generations in retirement. That said, the middle class will NOT stand to have their taxes raised when corporations like General Electric make $5.1 billion in US profits and pay an effective tax rate of 0% in 2010. For the middle class to swallow higher taxes, we're going to have to see the wealthy and the recipients of corporate welfare step up to the bat and pay higher taxes as well.
Enoch Root
05-22-2011, 04:33 PM
Anyone who thinks we can cut our way out of our deficit without raising taxes clearly doesn't have their head screwed on right. I mean, yes, theoretically we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Defense and not have a debt problem. But I think the middle class would rather pay higher taxes than see that happen. I make $8.50/hr (so I'm not even middle class based on my income), but I'd gladly pay a few percent more of my income if it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare would be there for me and future generations in retirement. That said, the middle class will NOT stand to have their taxes raised when corporations like General Electric make $5.1 billion in US profits and pay an effective tax rate of 0% in 2010. For the middle class to swallow higher taxes, we're going to have to see the wealthy and the recipients of corporate welfare step up to the bat and pay higher taxes as well.
This is very noble of you but as you are already aware it is not you or me or any other middle to low class families that should bear the tax burden. It is the rich who must do so. They already take all that wealth from the working people. The least that could be done is tax them significantly higher and invest that money in the people. That, however, is the clumsy solution but it will have to do for now.
transjen
05-22-2011, 05:13 PM
Anyone who thinks we can cut our way out of our deficit without raising taxes clearly doesn't have their head screwed on right. I mean, yes, theoretically we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Defense and not have a debt problem. But I think the middle class would rather pay higher taxes than see that happen. I make $8.50/hr (so I'm not even middle class based on my income), but I'd gladly pay a few percent more of my income if it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare would be there for me and future generations in retirement. That said, the middle class will NOT stand to have their taxes raised when corporations like General Electric make $5.1 billion in US profits and pay an effective tax rate of 0% in 2010. For the middle class to swallow higher taxes, we're going to have to see the wealthy and the recipients of corporate welfare step up to the bat and pay higher taxes as well.
This is what the GOP stand for When Reagan and the first Bush were running the country in to the red with there trickle down no Rep said diddly until Clinton was in the whitehouse then it was there top harp and concern and when W almost bankrupted us these same GOP said nothing until Obama took the whitehouse and sure enought they started harping about the sea of red ink created by the GOP lead house and sen and W
And now they claim more tax cuts are needed for the top brackets and all evil entitlements most be cut and done away with so the rich never have to suffer or pay off the red ink created by the GOP
I expect there next trick will be to cry we have to do away with all corp taxes in order to make jobs and the workers be extra taxed to pay the corp taxes a plivage of working tax and then to make tax cuts for the rich they'll have a not rich tax peantly all this will be from the Palin/Bachman ticket
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
05-22-2011, 09:33 PM
You're going to see several smart Republicans pass on this election and wait for 2016. Obama's going to raise taxes and piss off everyone in his second term because that's best for America. But this is clearly Obama's time right now.
Didn't Obama already have his Jimmy Carter moment? Maybe he did, but there's no "Reagan" in the GOP lineup.
TracyCoxx
05-22-2011, 09:37 PM
I make $8.50/hr (so I'm not even middle class based on my income), but I'd gladly pay a few percent more of my income if it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare would be there for me and future generations in retirement.You should pay a few percent more... into your 401k.
transjen
05-22-2011, 10:24 PM
Didn't Obama already have his Jimmy Carter moment? Maybe he did, but there's no "Reagan" in the GOP lineup.
Jimmy was a lot better then W
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
05-22-2011, 11:06 PM
Jimmy was a lot better then WLOL at what?
transjen
05-22-2011, 11:27 PM
Jimmy inherited a stagent econmy high unemployment from Ford and Nixon
and he won the election in 76
While W inherited a balance budget a strong economy and he stole the election in 00
Jimmy inherited a mess almost as bad as the mess Bo inherited
TracyCoxx
05-23-2011, 10:21 AM
Jimmy inherited a stagent econmy high unemployment from Ford and Nixon
and he won the election in 76
While W inherited a balance budget a strong economy and he stole the election in 00
Jimmy inherited a mess almost as bad as the mess Bo inherited
And W inherited Al Qaeda from Clinton who did nothing to confront them. What's your point? You're talking about what Carter & W inherited. You still haven't said what Carter is better at than W.
You should pay a few percent more... into your 401k.
No 401(k) to pay into. No pension either. And the employer doesn't pay one red cent towards our health plans. One of the quality service jobs that our economy was left with after we outsourced all our production capacity overseas.
Enoch Root
05-23-2011, 01:10 PM
No 401(k) to pay into. No pension either. And the employer doesn't pay one red cent towards our health plans. One of the quality service jobs that our economy was left with after we outsourced all our production capacity overseas.
No pension? Was it taken away from you by your employer?
SluttyShemaleAnna
05-23-2011, 07:10 PM
great cartoon there. The depiction of the left winger using a particularly vile anti-semitic Jewish stereotype demonstates quite well exactly what sort of people are behind the tea party movement and the right in general.
Enoch Root
05-23-2011, 07:20 PM
great cartoon there. The depiction of the left winger using a particularly vile anti-semitic Jewish stereotype demonstates quite well exactly what sort of people are behind the tea party movement and the right in general.
Vile anti-Semitic stereotype? What be this stereotype? I can't see what you're seeing since I know next to nothing about Jewish stereotypes.
Enoch Root
05-23-2011, 07:30 PM
Check it Anna. I found these two other gems in the same cartoonists site. Don't you just love the utter disconnect from reality?
I thought all those things were already "killed" before Obama came in. The border one is particularly precious since anti-immigration folks are rather clueless about the status of the US as a settler colony.
And isn't Common one of the chillest rappers out there? I've never listened to his music.
Chichester
05-27-2011, 06:15 PM
Palin is "toying" with fame again as she hops on the bus to ruin the biker's weekend in DC. What a whore. I like Bachman better, but how would you have liked having Trump's trophy wife as First Lady??!! WOOO!!!!
Obama should run Hillary as vice pesident this time, so she can be on deck for 2016.
transjen
05-27-2011, 06:39 PM
Palin is "toying" with fame again as she hops on the bus to ruin the biker's weekend in DC. What a whore. I like Bachman better, but how would you have liked having Trump's trophy wife as First Lady??!! WOOO!!!!
Palin and Bachman make me ashamed to be of the same gender
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Chichester
05-27-2011, 10:51 PM
Date me and find out what shame really is!
Palin's eyes really scare me. Psycho. Bachman adopted tons of kids at least, I think Romney will get the nomination???....Too early to tell for sure. It doesn't really matter who the Republicans nominate, they run everything by committee anyway, but killing Medicare as their platform? Hello? Anybody home?
Maybe this country really is about to crash and all the Powerbrokers have gone to Europe. Or Wall St. Or they're hiding til Obama is gone.
transjen
06-13-2011, 11:25 PM
After watching the GOP debate i would say all seven of em are true GOP candidates
All seven of em believe in trickle down economics and all we need to do to put America back to work is cut taxes and deregalate
So they all want to go back to the failed W policies
So if one of those seven morrons win in 12 it'll be like having W back in power
If they win get ready for the great depression to return if you think things are bad now wait till one of these bozos take over and pick up where W left off
We'll be a thrid world country for sure
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Didn't Obama already have his Jimmy Carter moment? Maybe he did, but there's no "Reagan" in the GOP lineup.
Yes there is, Chris Christie but he's not running.:confused:
franalexes
06-14-2011, 08:22 AM
If they win get ready for the great depression to return if you think things are bad now wait till one of these bozos take over and pick up where W left off
We'll be a thrid world country for sure
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
How's that "Hopey changey thingy working out for ya ?"
So far the "Hopey, changey" thing is working out better than the failed supply side economic policies of Republicans.
To illustrate just how fiscally bankrupt some of the candidates are, Tim Pawlenty calls for a tax plan that would give an average tax break of $1.4 million to the top 0.1% of the populace. (That's an additional $1.4 million tax break in addition to what they currently receive.) In an economy where "cutting the debt and reducing spending" is so vogue, the cost for Pawlenty's tax plan rings in at a cool $11.6 trillion in lost revenue.
franalexes
06-14-2011, 08:51 AM
So far the "Hopey, changey" thing is working out better than the failed supply side economic policies of Republicans.
To illustrate just how fiscally bankrupt some of the candidates are, Tim Pawlenty calls for a tax plan that would give an average tax break of $1.4 million to the top 0.1% of the populace. (That's an additional $1.4 million tax break in addition to what they currently receive.) In an economy where "cutting the debt and reducing spending" is so vogue, the cost for Pawlenty's tax plan rings in at a cool $11.6 trillion in lost revenue.
Democrat math? How does $1.4 million equal $11.6trillion?
How long does it take for our government to spend $1.4 million? ( not as long as it took me to write the question.)
Granted, we can not have debt. But "lost revenue"? Is it lost in the government pocket or yours and mine?
Republican economics? Drastically reduce taxes while expecting the budget to balance itself? I've never heard that one explained. If one thing supply side economics have taught us its that cutting taxes does not increase government revenues. Or are you one of those who thinks that we can just cut our way out of $14 trillion in debt?
And $1.4 million does not equal $11.6 trillion. But when you multiply that tax cut by all the various millionaires and billionaires over several years...It begins to add up. And don't forget Pawlenty's call to eliminate capital gains, estate taxes, etc.
Lest we forget...The top 10% of the population owns 80% of the US stock market. So while the rich like to complain about top marginal income tax rates, they in fact have most of their wealth sitting in securities that are taxed at discounted rates (15% on capital gains and dividends). This is how the rich end up paying lower effective tax rates than working stiffs.
And before you get all "but we can't hurt the job creators" on me...Tell me one thing...What economic benefit (other than liquidity) does the secondary buying and selling of securities do for the economy? And why should the gains on such sales be tax-advantaged?
I favor tax-advantaged treatment for investment capital that is actually put to work as venture capital for starting up/expanding firms. Someone that buys shares in an IPO is actually providing investment capital to a corporation-- they are investing in the economy. And perhaps gains on this sort of capital deployment should be tax advantaged.
But let's take an established corporation that is not selling shares on the market...In other words, you are the secondary purchaser of those company shares. Someone long before you bought the IPO shares and actually provided investment capital to the corporation. But once the original buyer sells those shares...That is where the tax-advantaged treatment should end. Because the next person in line may buy the shares at a higher price than the original owner...But he is merely providing capital to the seller of the securities...His capital is not being deployed by the corporation that initially sold shares. Secondary stock sales have no net economic benefit to the issuing companies. Arguably, the only benefit that secondary sales provide is to create liquidity in the market...But this benefit should not receive favorable tax treatment.
Now I got off track...But the idea that we can cut our way out of the debt without raising taxes is absurd. I believe we will ALL have to pay higher taxes if we want to keep the social programs that our society has grown to love...And yes, that means the middle class will have to pay higher taxes alongside the wealthy.
transjen
06-14-2011, 05:48 PM
How many jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts?
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
franalexes
06-14-2011, 08:46 PM
I believe we will ALL have to pay higher taxes if we want to keep the social programs that our society has grown to love...And yes, that means the middle class will have to pay higher taxes alongside the wealthy.
Can you also believe there are parts of "our social programs" I do not love?
I'm sure there may be...But the majority of Americans don't want major structural changes to Social Security or Medicare. Too many Americans want their cake and to eat it too.
TracyCoxx
06-15-2011, 06:55 PM
So they all want to go back to the failed W policies875 days after Bush and still rockin with the W gripes. :lol: Whose policies would you like to see come back? Spending ourselves into oblivion didn't work. Even Obama admits that, as he recently smiled and said: "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected" as those around him laughed. (You can get away with laughing at the dismal state of your economy when the media is working for you btw).
So if one of those seven morrons win in 12 it'll be like having W back in powerExcept W comes off looking like a secular science wiz next to most of those guys (gals).
How many jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts?How many more jobs would have been lost if BO ended the Bush tax cuts?
RobbyPants
06-15-2011, 07:16 PM
Whose policies would you like to see come back? Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.
Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist. :p
Chichester
06-16-2011, 06:15 AM
It's fabulous that the Republican field is so pathetic, because Obama is going to trip lots of alarms and warning lights before his eight year mission is over. If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?
Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.
TracyCoxx
06-16-2011, 08:38 AM
Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.
Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist. :p
Yeah, those were good times. Although he did have a pretty tough time taxing and spending with the republican controlled House & Senate.
TracyCoxx
06-16-2011, 09:01 AM
If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?Because they've been hijacked by the religious right.
Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.
I'm wondering why Christie is so popular? What does he have that other GOPish candidates don't? And I think the country is done with the Bushes.
So Tracy, a personal question for you. Do you think the way the religious right has hijacked the Republican party is ultimately a good thing or a liability? It is a reliable voting block...But I wondered what you thought of some of the policy positions of said voting block.
For me, "traditional family values" rubs me wrong. But then I'm one of those liberals who supports a woman's right to control their body. I also support gay marriage and several other things that are untenable to this voting block.
While I disagree with Republicans on countless issues, some of the more moderate and liberal Republicans don't leave such a bad taste in my mouth. The block of Republicans that voted to end DADT is actually a group of Republicans that I might consider voting for under certain circumstances. But among the Tea Party these individuals are considered RINO's. I think it's a shame that moderate Republicans have been so marginalized.
TracyCoxx
06-16-2011, 10:48 PM
So Tracy, a personal question for you. Do you think the way the religious right has hijacked the Republican party is ultimately a good thing or a liability? It is a reliable voting block...But I wondered what you thought of some of the policy positions of said voting block.
I think it's a liability and it runs counter to what conservatives, who should want limited government, should want. Limited government should not dictate morality. But if I want a president who's fiscally conservative, it's pretty much impossible to find one that doesn't want to also teach intelligent design in classrooms and that cavemen walked alongside dinosaurs, and they'll also think the earth's environment is indestructible because it's friken made by god. They'll want prayer in schools and seek guidance from the great sky fairy. I know a lot of people who vote democrat, but are just as fiscally conservative as I am because of all the other baggage the religious right brings.
For me, "traditional family values" rubs me wrong. But then I'm one of those liberals who supports a woman's right to control their body.Saying that a woman can control her body ignores the fact that there's another human in there. I don't think a few day old fetus is conscious, and there's probably nothing lost at that point if it was aborted. On the other hand, 7-9 month old fetuses are conscious and viable. It's a gray area, and at some point it becomes murder.
I also support gay marriage and several other things that are untenable to this voting block.Yes, republicans are opposed to gay marriage, but they also bring up a point. It's a state's rights issue, not a government issue. I would even go further... marriage shouldn't be between you and the government at all. It should be between you and your church.
The block of Republicans that voted to end DADT is actually a group of Republicans that I might consider voting for under certain circumstances.I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger.
But among the Tea Party these individuals are considered RINO's. I think it's a shame that moderate Republicans have been so marginalized.I thought the Tea Party was going to be a new beginning for the republicans. I thought they would bring back the central idea that we want a small fiscally responsible government. Period. But every Tea Party candidate, yes is pro small fiscally responsible government, but also the religious right on steroids.
I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger.
I would like to see some evidence for either of these claims regarding the "reality" about gays in the military.
Prove it. And don't forget what the military leadership itself has been forced to admit.
TracyCoxx
06-17-2011, 01:38 PM
I would like to see some evidence for either of these claims regarding the "reality" about gays in the military.
Prove it. And don't forget what the military leadership itself has been forced to admit.
Please read again the first two words in the block you quoted from me. I am only stating my thoughts.
But perhaps you're right. Perhaps every last serviceman/woman is fine with gays in the military and therefore there is no one who would be distracted by them. And perhaps those overly militant bastards who beat gays and transgendered people would all steer clear of the military.
Please read again the first two words in the block you quoted from me. I am only stating my thoughts.
But perhaps you're right. Perhaps every last serviceman/woman is fine with gays in the military and therefore there is no one who would be distracted by them. And perhaps those overly militant bastards who beat gays and transgendered people would all steer clear of the military.
Here's what you actually wrote:
"I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger."
Anyone who knows how to diagram a sentence can tell you that what you are referring to as a "thought" is DADT as a compromise. The rest of what you state is not presented as your thought, but as a claim to be "reality."
So, either say that you can't back up your claim about "reality" or acknowledge that you mis-wrote. But don't hide behind a lexical argument that holds no water.
TracyCoxx
06-17-2011, 03:59 PM
So, either say that you can't back up your claim about "reality" or acknowledge that you mis-wrote. But don't hide behind a lexical argument that holds no water.
I'm fine, thanks. But if I need an editor for my posts you'll be the first one I'll call.
But feel free to claim that every last serviceman/woman is fine with gays in the military and that overly militant bastards who beat gays and transgendered people would all steer clear of the military.
I'm fine, thanks. But if I need an editor for my posts you'll be the first one I'll call.
But feel free to claim that every last serviceman/woman is fine with gays in the military and that overly militant bastards who beat gays and transgendered people would all steer clear of the military.
As usual, you prove yourself to be nothing more than a dissembling troll.
...I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger...
Here's what you actually wrote:
"I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger."
Anyone who knows how to diagram a sentence can tell you that what you are referring to as a "thought" is DADT as a compromise. The rest of what you state is not presented as your thought, but as a claim to be "reality."...
That's what I also understood Tracy's post to mean.
That's what I also understood Tracy's post to mean.
Thank you, ila. And it must really be Tracy's belief, because given the opportunity to recant, Tracy passed. Of course, the imperative to post like a troll may have overwhelmed reason at that moment.
...I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger...
The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.
transjen
06-17-2011, 04:48 PM
Bachman is a zero term president
Bachman is teaparty wackado and needs a change of address form to show her new home at the funny farm
Bachman is very good at finger pointing and complaining and laying all the blame at the DEMS but she never offers any ideas on what she would do to fix things no wonder the GOP love her
Her only answer is continue with the failed policies of W which were the continuing of his fathers failed policies who was continuing the failed policies of Reagan who was nothing then a two bit brain dead movie actor no wonder this country is so screwed up
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
... Bachman is teaparty wackado and needs a change of address form to show her new home at the funny farm ...
She's beyond "wackado," Jen. Remember in 2004, when she said that if a teacher showed a picture from "The Lion King" and then said, "Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?," the teacher would be participating in the "normalization" of homosexuality, which would lead to "desensitization." The message, claimed Bachmann, would be: "I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay."
In 2008, she said -- revealing her tremendous grasp of science -- that "carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn?t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."
But my favorite Bachmannism is when she testified to the Minnesota State Senate in 2005 that abolishing the minimum wage would create jobs. "Literally," she said, "if we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." Putting aside that reducing the minimum wage has been shown by economists to be contractionary, it really speaks to the kind of United States she wants: "jobs at whatever level," with no protection.
Enoch Root
06-17-2011, 05:22 PM
Bachman is teaparty wackado
The phrase "teaparty wackado" is redundant. The one word offers the same information as the other.
TracyCoxx
06-17-2011, 06:52 PM
The phrase "teaparty wackado" is redundant. The one word offers the same information as the other.
Oh the irony. Calling something redundant, and then defining redundant.
Oh the irony. Calling something redundant, and then defining redundant.
Oh, the typicality ... moving on to the next topic to avoid confronting having been called out for the previous topic.
Enoch Root
06-18-2011, 07:38 AM
Oh the irony. Calling something redundant, and then defining redundant.
This would be funnier were it not as smc said: you are using me to avoid responding to smc's challenge.
franalexes
06-18-2011, 08:18 AM
Unlike the rest of this forum, there seems to be no serious discussion here.
Unlike the rest of this forum, there seems to be no serious discussion here.
Some of us try, but alas, it's damn near possible with a troll in the thread. A troll doesn't really want to discuss. A troll just wants to be a troll.
Enoch Root
06-18-2011, 09:39 AM
Unlike the rest of this forum, there seems to be no serious discussion here.
The fault lies not with me but with Tracy's utter inability to give a substantive answer or to admit a mistake and engage in the necessary introspection.
The troll by his nature cannot offer anything of substance. The troll by his nature is only capable of putting people down.
franalexes
06-18-2011, 11:20 AM
Tracy's remarks are only of little substance,,,,,,,, to you.
The Christians that were in the lion's den never won the battle; but the lions never defeated the Christians.
One needs to look away from the computer long enough to realise that the Obama plan is not working unless of course if "not working" is the plan.
Chichester
06-18-2011, 11:48 AM
Like the Lions in the coliseum said "If you can't beat 'em, eat 'em!!!
I think you can lay direct blame for this weak field of Republican candidates on FOX NEWS. No candidate can win the Bible Belt primaries wihout Fox, and no candidate can win the Presidency with Fox. This country will never elect Sarah Palin even if unemployment is at 20%!!!!
Enoch Root
06-18-2011, 02:28 PM
Tracy's remarks are only of little substance,,,,,,,, to you.
The Christians that were in the lion's den never won the battle; but the lions never defeated the Christians.
One needs to look away from the computer long enough to realise that the Obama plan is not working unless of course if "not working" is the plan.
If I understand the analogy correctly you are comparing Tracy and people like Tracy to Christians under persecution. The analogy is an absurd one and it has two problems I can see (god knows what others I cannot): it implies people like Tracy are under persecution and it implies moral and intellectual superiority for people like Tracy. The first is silly: people like Tracy run the US and every other country on the planet. They use the population to their own selfish ends. History is defined by the exploitation of the lower classes by the higher. The second is even sillier: what people like Tracy propose is to further empower the ruling class by cutting their taxes (which then causes slashes to education, science research, the building and upgrade of infrastructure and its maintenance, etc), destroying unions, keeping healthcare from the population and god knows what else I can't think of. It is the poor who are made to shoulder the burden of reviving the economy. This is not moral. It is, however, intelligent insofar as it destroys people's lives for the benefit of the rich, which is a fine thing to experience vicariously if you identify with ruling class interests.
Tracy's remarks are only of little substance,,,,,,,, to you.
The Christians that were in the lion's den never won the battle; but the lions never defeated the Christians.
One needs to look away from the computer long enough to realise that the Obama plan is not working unless of course if "not working" is the plan.
Why do troll posts matter? Because I love this site, and troll posts diminish it. Simple as that. If we could only get trolls to concentrate their masturbation on pictures instead of political threads, everyone would be better off, including the troll ... unless the masturbation represents some sort of sexual dysfunction. Come to think of it, that explanation makes sense.
Enoch Root
06-18-2011, 03:28 PM
Tracy's remarks are only of little substance,,,,,,,, to you.
The Christians that were in the lion's den never won the battle; but the lions never defeated the Christians.
One needs to look away from the computer long enough to realise that the Obama plan is not working unless of course if "not working" is the plan.
Let me clarify what I mean by substance:
The post cannot a) depend upon derailing conversation. Tracy does this all the time by "answering" a question with a question, focusing on trivial details in a post asking for answers from Tracy, or as Tracy demonstrated not 10 posts ago! by using me and making fun of me to avoid smc's challenge. Or just ignoring people altogether--Tracy has done this many times to smc.
And more importantly b) it cannot depend upon impoverishing, bankrupting, or killing people. Tracy's interests are clearly ruling class interests and the ruling class has a tendency towards proposing policies that do one or all three of those things. If your answers, posts, solutions--call it what you will--depend on restricting the freedom of the working people it has no substance. It is, rather, morally abhorrent.
...And more importantly b) it cannot depend upon impoverishing, bankrupting, or killing people. Tracy's interests are clearly ruling class interests and the ruling class has a tendency towards proposing policies that do one or all three of those things. If your answers, posts, solutions--call it what you will--depend on restricting the freedom of the working people it has no substance. It is, rather, morally abhorrent.
Give the communist propaganda claptrap a break for awhile. Marxism is a discredited ideology.
Tracy's remarks are only of little substance,,,,,,,, to
One needs to look away from the computer long enough to realise that the Obama plan is not working unless of course if "not working" is the plan.
Funny, I thought the same thing could be said of the Republican agenda. After all, Republicans are on the record as saying their NUMBER ONE priority is making Obama a one-term president (as opposed to actually creating jobs or fixing the economy). It seems they are willing to wreck the economy, default on the debt, and do anything to achieve that end.
TracyCoxx
06-19-2011, 11:36 AM
This would be funnier were it not as smc said: you are using me to avoid responding to smc's challenge.
He may not have liked my response, (and by default you didn't like it either) but I did respond.
He may not have liked my response, (and by default you didn't like it either) but I did respond.
Yes, you did "respond" ... in the same way that if I were to quote your most recent post and then write ANYTHING I could claim to have responded.
You are such a cowardly debater, Tracy Coxx. You know that this is about the substance of your responses. Why cowardly? You rarely take responsibility ffor the TROLL-like crap you spew. You try over and again to change the subject when you get called out. Sometimes, you whine that you're not being treated properly. And then, when you get just a tiny bit of courage in you, you send PMs with challenges that you then never meet yourself.
Your response to Enoch Root is no different.
This isn't about what you stand for, it's about HOW you stand for it. There are people who have your points of view who are honorable and honest debaters, who believe that discourse has value. Then there are Internet TROLLS. Anyone who can get past the "politics" and look at the method, regardless of which side that person may come down on politically, knows the camp in which you reside.
Enoch Root
06-19-2011, 11:47 AM
He may not have liked my response, (and by default you didn't like it either) but I did respond.
I am not smc's lapdog though I do bristle at the accusation. He and I agree on many things but this does not mean I follow him blindly.
TracyCoxx
06-19-2011, 12:20 PM
The fault lies not with me but with Tracy's utter inability to give a substantive answer or to admit a mistake and engage in the necessary introspection.
The troll by his nature cannot offer anything of substance. The troll by his nature is only capable of putting people down.
Are you putting me down? In every post that you write referring to me, aren't you putting me down? You exemplify Karl Marx's quote "Accuse others for what you do". Who on here have I put down?
GRH asked a reasonable question and I gave my answers. Then come the obligatory responses from smc (and again by default you). You follow him around like a little puppy dog yapping at his heels. Get a room.
people like Tracy run the US and every other country on the planet. HA! I wish lol. You don't know me. You have a picture in your mind of what you think I am which you refer to instead of what I actually write here.
further empower the ruling class by cutting their taxesTranslation: Tax all people an equal percentage. OMG what a radical thought.
Let me clarify what I mean by substance:
The post cannot a) depend upon derailing conversation.
smc and Enoch do this all the time by nitpicking posts of anyone they disagree with, with the goal of starting an argument that has nothing to do with the original conversation. When attempts to get back to the conversation are made they cry foul that their new conversation is not continued. Certain members of TLB staff make a consistent practice of this that is as predictable as the sunrise in the morning.
And more importantly b) it cannot depend upon impoverishing, bankrupting, or killing people.And to think, you said nothing when the topic of killing unborn fetuses arose. Who are you accusing me of wanting dead exactly?
Yes, you did "respond" ... in the same way that if I were to quote your most recent post and then write ANYTHING I could claim to have responded.
You are such a cowardly debater, Tracy Coxx.I have zero interest in debating you smc. My interest in these threads are the political issues. Your only interest in debating me is in derailing conversation away from these political issues with me or anyone you disagree with. This is evident when anyone of your lackeys say things you accuse me of and you say nothing of it.
If you did have something of substance to add to the political debate I still have no interest in debating you because of your argumentative and hostile tactics. Not to mention your frequent use of administrative methods to end debates.
So tell me, in light of all this, why would I have any interest in a "debate" with you?
Enough of this BS. Back to the topic.
TracyCoxx
06-19-2011, 12:26 PM
Funny, I thought the same thing could be said of the Republican agenda. After all, Republicans are on the record as saying their NUMBER ONE priority is making Obama a one-term president (as opposed to actually creating jobs or fixing the economy). It seems they are willing to wreck the economy, default on the debt, and do anything to achieve that end.
Republican's priority, or at least the Tea Party faction of them, is to create jobs and fix the economy. The first step in doing that is to get rid of Obama. Since Obama is fixated on spending trillions to grow the government and raise our debt to astronomical heights. Obama's policies are destructive to our economy. He is the number one impediment to job creation, and has admitted that his policies have done little to improve the situation.
GRH, what is the result of endlessly raising the debt ceiling?
Republican's priority, or at least the Tea Party faction of them, is to create jobs and fix the economy. The first step in doing that is to get rid of Obama. Since Obama is fixated on spending trillions to grow the government and raise our debt to astronomical heights. Obama's policies are destructive to our economy. He is the number one impediment to job creation, and has admitted that his policies have done little to improve the situation.
GRH, what is the result of endlessly raising the debt ceiling?
I am continually amazed at how far into debt the US is going (they aren't the only country either). I am also amazed that the solution seems to be to keep printing more money. Eventually the US dollar will be worth nothing. Unfortunately the money traders of the world have yet to wake up to this fact. I keep reading in newspapers the currency fluctuations are due to money traders fleeing for the safe haven of the US dollar. Gives one food for thought.
Republican's priority, or at least the Tea Party faction of them, is to create jobs and fix the economy.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
... I have zero interest in debating you smc. My interest in these threads are the political issues. Your only interest in debating me is in derailing conversation away from these political issues with me or anyone you disagree with. This is evident when anyone of your lackeys say things you accuse me of and you say nothing of it.
If you did have something of substance to add to the political debate I still have no interest in debating you because of your argumentative and hostile tactics. Not to mention your frequent use of administrative methods to end debates.
So tell me, in light of all this, why would I have any interest in a "debate" with you?
Enough of this BS. Back to the topic.
This is bullshit. You post outrageous provocations and get called on them. You ignore being asked to prove it. I have posted dozens of lengthy, thoughtful opinion pieces in your political threads. I engage anyone who wants to have an honest discourse. The record is clear for anyone to see.
People should be held responsible for what they say and write. I accept 100% responsibility for everything I post on this site. When I've been wrong, I have posted so. These posts can be found and read. When you're called out, you change the subject. Period.
Now, prove you're not a debating coward. Back up your post that provoked this exchange -- the "reality" to which you ascribe your anti-gays-in-the-military statements. ila called you out on it, and you haven't answered. You don't need to debate me. You can debate the issue with him. Answer his post. Go on, don't be afraid.
TracyCoxx
06-19-2011, 11:56 PM
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Republican's priority, or at least the Tea Party faction of them, is to create jobs and fix the economy. The first step in doing that is to get rid of Obama. Since Obama is fixated on spending trillions to grow the government and raise our debt to astronomical heights. Obama's policies are destructive to our economy. He is the number one impediment to job creation, and has admitted that his policies have done little to improve the situation.
GRH, what is the result of endlessly raising the debt ceiling?
transjen
06-20-2011, 12:15 AM
Who is more foolish the fool or the fools that follow him?
Tax cuts will not fix the economy doing away with the dread big brother government will not fix the economy ending unions banning gay marriage hunting down every illeagal alien none of these things will fix the economy
You want to fix the economy it's very simple but neither party wants or even has any solid idea on how to do it
To fix the economy you need a strong midclass, it was a strong middleclass that made the US economy number one
Reagans moring in America declared war on the middleclass and started the policies to elimitnate the middleclass and NAFTA CAFTA and all rhese other BS trade agreements sent most of the middleclass jobs over to India and Chgina, 20 years of outsourcing and we are seeing the true cost ski high unemployment
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
06-20-2011, 07:24 AM
20 years of outsourcing and we are seeing the true cost ski high unemployment
Outsourcing is a problem, but much less than 20 years ago unemployment has hovered between 4 & 6%.
BO blames it on ATMs (http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/14/obama-blames-atms-high-unemployment) lol. But again, we've had ATMs for a while now.
Chichester
06-20-2011, 08:03 AM
Let's face it folks, this isn't exactly "The Greatest Generation" we live in. Look at the last 20 years. Is there anything to be proud of?
TracyCoxx
06-20-2011, 10:06 AM
Let's face it folks, this isn't exactly "The Greatest Generation" we live in. Look at the last 20 years. Is there anything to be proud of?
mmmm.... not really. If you put this America up against the America from the 40s-60s, we'd get our asses handed to us.
Wow, Tracy must have friends in high places because a bucket load of posts just got deleted where she was accused (rightly so IMO) of being a troll.
franalexes
06-20-2011, 12:47 PM
[QUOTE=Enoch Root;188577]If I understand the analogy correctly you are comparing Tracy and people like Tracy to Christians under persecution.
My thoughts were only to say that Tracy is a minority in this forum.
On the outside, Tracy does seem to be favorable to the Tea Party ( even though there really is no such thing {organised}.)
They are mostly middle class ( are you reading this Jen?) that are fed up with Washington. Minority in numbers but certainly a force to be recond with.
TracyCoxx
06-20-2011, 01:25 PM
[QUOTE=Enoch Root;188577]If I understand the analogy correctly you are comparing Tracy and people like Tracy to Christians under persecution.
My thoughts were only to say that Tracy is a minority in this forum.
On the outside, Tracy does seem to be favorable to the Tea Party ( even though there really is no such thing {organised}.)
They are mostly middle class ( are you reading this Jen?) that are fed up with Washington. Minority in numbers but certainly a force to be recond with.
On the surface, yes, I'm for the Tea Party since their biggest priorities are to reduce the debt and shrink the government. But beyond that they are the religious right. That's where we part.
What about you Fran?
Tracy, as I said in my PM to you, I'm sorry my initial reply/edit didn't get my point regarding the government debt across. As I meant to say the first time, I obviously don't think endlessly adding debt is a sustainable fiscal strategy. But where I seem to differ from some of the Tea Partiers is that I also don't think defaulting on the debt is a viable option.
Some people make a point that tax receipts are enough to cover the interest payments on the debt. That, in and of itself, may be true. But the reason we run deficits every month is because our non-discretionary spending exceeds tax receipts. So yes, we may be able to pay the interest on the debt without defaulting based purely on tax receipts...We can't meet our obligations based entirely on tax receipts. Want to hurt the economy? Try not paying seniors their social security checks for a few months.
Unfortunately, the policies that are likely to rectify the debt situation (cutting spending and raising taxes) are also the same policies that are likely to stifle growth and potentially lead us back into a recession. History bares this fact out. In an ideal world, we'd be able to grow our way out of the debt...And some Republican plans (Pawlenty) insinuate that spending $11.6 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow stimulate GDP growth on par with China's GDP growth. Pretty much every economist admits that this notion is absurd. Similarly, the idea that you finance your way out of debt by adding more debt (without addressing structural problems) is not sustainable.
We really need austerity...But the time for harsh austerity isn't now. There needs to be a plan whereby which austerity will be phased in so that we don't choke our economic recovery. And in my opinion, austerity measures need to leave EVERYTHING on the table...Tax increases, spending cuts, entitlement reform, etc. And quite frankly, I think none of our current crop of politicians have the political wherewithal to stand up and do what needs to be done. To be sure...They are one-sided in their approach. Republicans will talk about privatizing Medicare but don't want to touch taxes. Democrats will talk about raising taxes but don't want to touch entitlements. In the end, I'm sure that we'll end up with a bland compromise that is underwhelming...And which ultimately does very little to address our larger issues.
You make some other good points that I thought I'd at least comment on.
Saying that a woman can control her body ignores the fact that there's another human in there. I don't think a few day old fetus is conscious, and there's probably nothing lost at that point if it was aborted. On the other hand, 7-9 month old fetuses are conscious and viable. It's a gray area, and at some point it becomes murder.
I think we're largely in agreement here...We'd probably just disagree on the specifics. You are right that a pregnant woman has another human life inside-- but your argument ignores the fact that said life isn't capable of functioning outside of the womb. In this sense, the fetus is very much like a parasite. And just as I've given my cat dewormer for parasites, women can take action to rid themselves of life which isn't capable of sustaining itself outside the woman's body...
But you are absolutely right, at some point the fetus is capable of being sustained outside of the womb...And I believe abortion at that point is murder. Where do you draw this line? I don't know. From my personal perspective, I think abortion is deplorable and is murder very early within the lifespan of a potential human being. But I don't think it's my place to make moral judgements for other people...And despite what many on the right would lead you to believe, I don't know ANY woman that has undertaken the decision to get an abortion lightly.
And there's also the issue that whether it's legal or not...Women have been trying to abort babies long before Roe vs. Wade. I'd prefer abortion be a medically supervised and safe (relatively speaking) procedure. This is a main reason that I am pro-choice. But I'm not one of those raving pro-choice lunatics who believes in the supremacy of a "woman's right to choose." I have absolutely no problem with making third trimester abortions illegal in almost all cases. I have no problem with the 24-week limit...In fact, I know that some states have been making the threshhold for an abortion even earlier (like 20 weeks). I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is when Republicans go so far as trying to make virtually all abortion illegal-- including day-after pills and in cases of rape/incest.
Yes, republicans are opposed to gay marriage, but they also bring up a point. It's a state's rights issue, not a government issue. I would even go further... marriage shouldn't be between you and the government at all. It should be between you and your church.
Funny how when it comes to civil liberties Republicans become so deferential to states rights...But state be damned if they want to institute a policy like medical marijuana. I think any time the state infringes on the rights of a group of people it becomes a government issue...Particularly when the federal government promises equal protections under the 14th Amendment.
However, with the second part of your statement I couldn't agree more. I would have absolutely no problem with the federal government (and state government) exiting the marriage business altogether. All government recognized marriages will become null and void and shall henceforth be deemed to be civil contracts...civil unions essentially. Any two consenting adults can apply for said civil contract, and when granted the contract, will be given all the rights and responsibilities that the former institution of marriage used to confer. If the same consenting adults wish to get married (a religious ceremony overseen by "God"), they can contact the church/denomination/faith of their choice and receive the rights of marriage.
I thought the Tea Party was going to be a new beginning for the republicans. I thought they would bring back the central idea that we want a small fiscally responsible government. Period. But every Tea Party candidate, yes is pro small fiscally responsible government, but also the religious right on steroids.
Sadly, you're right. Some of the principles of the Tea Party aren't a complete turn-off to me. But the religious right factor guarantees that I wouldn't vote for a Tea Party (or pretty much any Republican) candidate. Thankfully there is a small faction of libertarian sentiment within the Tea Party...It just gets drowned out by all the flag-waving bravado.
TracyCoxx
06-21-2011, 01:28 AM
I obviously don't think endlessly adding debt is a sustainable fiscal strategy. But where I seem to differ from some of the Tea Partiers is that I also don't think defaulting on the debt is a viable option.Correction. That's where you differ from 100% of the republicans in the House, and 43% of the democrats in the House. They just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling unless something is put in place to bring the debt down in a substatial way.
Question for you: 236 republicans (not just Tea Party, but republicans) and 82 democrats voted not to raise the debt ceiling in a no-strings attached vote. Why is it the general perception that only the Tea Partiers want us to default on our debt? Left wing media does not jive with reality.
Want to hurt the economy? Try not paying seniors their social security checks for a few months.uh, not sure who's proposing that one.
Unfortunately, the policies that are likely to rectify the debt situation (cutting spending and raising taxes) are also the same policies that are likely to stifle growth and potentially lead us back into a recession. History bares this fact out. In an ideal world, we'd be able to grow our way out of the debt...And some Republican plans (Pawlenty) insinuate that spending $11.6 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow stimulate GDP growth on par with China's GDP growth. Pretty much every economist admits that this notion is absurd. Similarly, the idea that you finance your way out of debt by adding more debt (without addressing structural problems) is not sustainable.Yes, there are many ways to start shrinking our debt. And probably all of them will hurt. The differences is some will hurt for a relatively short while leaving us stronger because responsible decisions have been made and some will hurt for a decade or more leaving the US weaker in the end because irresponsible decisions were made. Spending more and growing the government would be the latter. It's a cancer we will have to deal with, perhaps forever.
Cutting spending is the right thing to do. Like in Canada & Puerto Rico.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/15/us-could-learn-valuable-financial-lesson-from-canada/
I think none of our current crop of politicians have the political wherewithal to stand up and do what needs to be done. To be sure...They are one-sided in their approach. Republicans will talk about privatizing Medicare but don't want to touch taxes. Democrats will talk about raising taxes but don't want to touch entitlements. In the end, I'm sure that we'll end up with a bland compromise that is underwhelming...And which ultimately does very little to address our larger issues.I agree with you there....
TracyCoxx
06-21-2011, 01:38 AM
Funny how when it comes to civil liberties Republicans become so deferential to states rights...But state be damned if they want to institute a policy like medical marijuana. I think any time the state infringes on the rights of a group of people it becomes a government issue...Particularly when the federal government promises equal protections under the 14th Amendment.Medical marijuana lol nudge nudge, wink wink.
However, with the second part of your statement I couldn't agree more. I would have absolutely no problem with the federal government (and state government) exiting the marriage business altogether. All government recognized marriages will become null and void and shall henceforth be deemed to be civil contracts...civil unions essentially. Any two consenting adults can apply for said civil contract, and when granted the contract, will be given all the rights and responsibilities that the former institution of marriage used to confer. If the same consenting adults wish to get married (a religious ceremony overseen by "God"), they can contact the church/denomination/faith of their choice and receive the rights of marriage.Put it on the ballot now. With a 50% divorce rate it will be passed on the spot.
Enoch Root
06-21-2011, 06:50 AM
Are you putting me down? In every post that you write referring to me, aren't you putting me down? You exemplify Karl Marx's quote "Accuse others for what you do". Who on here have I put down?
GRH asked a reasonable question and I gave my answers. Then come the obligatory responses from smc (and again by default you). You follow him around like a little puppy dog yapping at his heels. Get a room.
smc and Enoch do this all the time by nitpicking posts of anyone they disagree with, with the goal of starting an argument that has nothing to do with the original conversation. When attempts to get back to the conversation are made they cry foul that their new conversation is not continued. Certain members of TLB staff make a consistent practice of this that is as predictable as the sunrise in the morning.
And to think, you said nothing when the topic of killing unborn fetuses arose. Who are you accusing me of wanting dead exactly?
Were you to say the sky is blue or that I am Puerto Rican, it would seem to me no less a statement of fact than when I characterize your posts as those of a troll.
This issue about ?unborn fetuses? is a further distraction. Saying nothing against the claim does not mean I approve.
If someone asks for clarification, for an answer, and the person being questioned makes a show of not providing one that is an odd thing. It is cause for skepticism and for at least one more attempt at asking for an answer. This is what I mean by derailing. Conversations by their nature generate many different avenues to take and some avenues interest some people more than others and it is by no means a bad thing for someone to ask a question. Appropriate responses include: I?ll have to think more on this or I have the information elsewhere give me (an hour, a day, a week, etc) to read it over, compile it and post it here or simply admit ignorance, for ignorance?so long as it is not deliberate?is no sin.
Ultimately it is impossible to have a discussion with you. Save, of course, if you are allowed to ignore anything that you don?t like or contradicts you, whether a direct challenge from smc or ila?s softer suggestion to get your facts straight or my even tamer reminder not to use me as an excuse to ignore other challenges.
... You exemplify Karl Marx's quote "Accuse others for what you do". ...
Provide the source for this quote from Karl Marx, other than a conservative site in the blogosphere. It shows up nowhere in any of the complete online libraries of the works of Karl Marx, but it is used again and again by conservative bloggers. I am perfectly willing to accept that it is real if you can cite the source. Otherwise, you must retract it in the interest of intellectual honesty.
TracyCoxx
06-21-2011, 12:13 PM
Provide the source for this quote from Karl Marx, other than a conservative site in the blogosphere. It shows up nowhere in any of the complete online libraries of the works of Karl Marx, but it is used again and again by conservative bloggers. I am perfectly willing to accept that it is real if you can cite the source. Otherwise, you must retract it in the interest of intellectual honesty.
I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule. Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that. Again you contribute nothing to this thread, and instead post extraneous off topic (yes off topic since you're glossing over the point of what was said in order to whine about a secondary issue) message with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response and disrupting on-topic discussion. Kindly find another thread to troll.
What are people's thoughts on Rick Perry entering the GOP fray? I'd be a little concerned to elect anyone who has talked about seceding from the Union-- haven't we been down that path before?
I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule. Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that. Again you contribute nothing to this thread, and instead post extraneous off topic (yes off topic since you're glossing over the point of what was said in order to whine about a secondary issue) message with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response and disrupting on-topic discussion. Kindly find another thread to troll.
This is the greatest sophism you have yet posted, Tracy Coxx. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you essentially reserve for yourself the right to make up any quote, attribute it to anyone, and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty. You must be very proud of yourself for that.
I won't even waste the forum's time with the discussion of the "proving a negative" strategy that is intellectually bankrupt -- but that you employ nonetheless.
Notably, by calling me a troll, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you accuse Enoch Root of doing? The answer is clearly yes.
As for not contributing to this thread, that's not really for you to decide. You only have the right to start your political threads, not determine who gets to post in them. You've been told this before by the site owner. Why don't you post that PM, Tracy?
I seek to contribute by confronting positions you take and challenging you to back them up. That is a basic part of political discourse, but you don't like that part, so you pretend that it isn't. Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so. I have contributed thoughtful and analytic posts throughout the political threads on this site, as you well know and as anyone who cares to search can find out. I don't start troll threads like you do, because being troll is an act of political cowardice. Again, just because you say you're not a troll, and call me one, doesn't make it true. What makes it true is a reasoned look at the posts, at the entirety of posts, and at the entirety of participation in the political threads here. I have every confidence that -- REGARDLESS of the political positions you adopt or I adopt -- that who is really the troll is clear to anyone who takes an honest look.
Some people aren't bothered by trolling. I know this for a fact in the case of someone on this very site. That doesn't mean that member doesn't recognize you as a troll.
TracyCoxx
06-21-2011, 12:59 PM
What are people's thoughts on Rick Perry entering the GOP fray? I'd be a little concerned to elect anyone who has talked about seceding from the Union-- haven't we been down that path before?
[QUOTE=Perry]Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that.[/QUOTE ]
He never said Texas should suceeed. He said the above to a reporter in response to the angry mob at one of the Tea-parties who were shouting 'suceeed!'. Add a liberal media bias and now it's a common myth that Perry wants to succeed. On the same day, Perry was also protesting the federal government trying to interfere in state affairs. The 10th amendment protects against this.
[QUOTE=Perry]Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that.[/QUOTE ]
He never said Texas should suceeed. He said the above to a reporter in response to the angry mob at one of the Tea-parties who were shouting 'suceeed!'. Add a liberal media bias and now it's a common myth that Perry wants to succeed. On the same day, Perry was also protesting the federal government trying to interfere in state affairs. The 10th amendment protects against this.
Perry did what politicians do all the time, on the right and left: he pandered. It's disingenuous to state that he is actually for secession, since he knows that it's not really possible or actually desirable on the part of his constituents. But it's equally disingenuous to pretend that his remarks were less pandering than they actually were. Even when a politician panders, he or she should be held accountable for what he says, not given a pass. This goes for Obama no less than Perry.
By the way, it's "secede," not "succeed." Although, in a strange twist, it would appear that many candidates for the presidency are banking (pun intended) on things not succeeding with this country in advance of the 2012 election.
TracyCoxx
06-22-2011, 08:11 AM
This is the greatest sophism you have yet posted, Tracy Coxx. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you essentially reserve for yourself the right to make up any quote, attribute it to anyone, and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty. You must be very proud of yourself for that.
So you're saying that I said I reserve for myself the right to make up any quote and attribute it to anyone since there's no forum rule against it. Hmmm, did I really say that?
I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule.Nope. Quite a lot of things are said on this forum without references, believe it or not. I'll put in the extra work when I'm working on my thesis, but it's not a forum rule here so I'll omit my bibliography. I never said I had the right to make up quotes.
and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty.That doesn't sound like anything I said either. Let's review.
Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that.Dang, that actually sounds like the opposite of what I said. Interesting.
I won't even waste the forum's time with the discussion of the "proving a negative" strategy that is intellectually bankrupt -- but that you employ nonetheless.Actually you imply a negative with your skepticism. I'll give you a hint here to help you out though: You could cite who the real source of the quote is. Then I'd look pretty silly. Otherwise your accusation is coming out of left field.
Notably, by calling me a troll, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you accuse Enoch Root of doing? The answer is clearly yes.Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.
As for not contributing to this thread, that's not really for you to decide. You only have the right to start your political threads, not determine who gets to post in them.You twist my words again. I have never "determined" who should post here. I said "Kindly find another thread to troll". First off, that only refers to your trolling posts. In reality it would be rule 4 that would restrict your off topic posts: "Stick to the issues". Please stay. I'm sure I would have so much to learn by your example about rule 4.
I seek to contribute by confronting positions you take and challenging you to back them up. That is a basic part of political discourseNot all attitudes are conducive to political discourse though. I recognize them for what they are and TRY to avoid them. I admit I haven't been too good at that lately. When I do respond I explain my side but I recognize that my position will not be agreed with. I'm not going to beat it into you. I say my piece and move on. It is a given that you wouldn't accept my reasoning. Not my problem.
I have every confidence that -- REGARDLESS of the political positions you adopt or I adopt -- that who is really the troll is clear to anyone who takes an honest look.I will have to admit that 39% of your posts here have actually been more or less on the thread's topic.
So you're saying that I said I reserve for myself the right to make up any quote and attribute it to anyone since there's no forum rule against it. Hmmm, did I really say that?
Nope. Quite a lot of things are said on this forum without references, believe it or not. I'll put in the extra work when I'm working on my thesis, but it's not a forum rule here so I'll omit my bibliography. I never said I had the right to make up quotes.
That doesn't sound like anything I said either. Let's review.
Dang, that actually sounds like the opposite of what I said. Interesting.
Actually you imply a negative with your skepticism. I'll give you a hint here to help you out though: You could cite who the real source of the quote is. Then I'd look pretty silly. Otherwise your accusation is coming out of left field.
Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.
You twist my words again. I have never "determined" who should post here. I said "Kindly find another thread to troll". First off, that only refers to your trolling posts. In reality it would be rule 4 that would restrict your off topic posts: "Stick to the issues". Please stay. I'm sure I would have so much to learn by your example about rule 4.
Not all attitudes are conducive to political discourse though. I recognize them for what they are and TRY to avoid them. I admit I haven't been too good at that lately. When I do respond I explain my side but I recognize that my position will not be agreed with. I'm not going to beat it into you. I say my piece and move on. It is a given that you wouldn't accept my reasoning. Not my problem.
I will have to admit that 39% of your posts here have actually been more or less on the thread's topic.
If your sophism wasn't so unfortunate it would be laughable.
Enoch Root
06-24-2011, 02:17 PM
Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.
This fellow forum members provides an interesting thought exercise: How is one to defend oneself against baseless accusations?
...
...
I think I have it: boo-fuckin'-hoo.
yearofthesmurfs
06-26-2011, 10:25 AM
I think Romney is their best chance...but I wouldn't vote for GOPr anyway.
Michele Bachmann is coming on strong in Iowa, thanks in large part to the tremendous appeal she has to those who cherish America's wonderful history of fighting for liberty:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/254416/jimmy-kimmel-live-michele-bachmanns-story-of-america?from=fb_share
randolph
07-05-2011, 08:21 AM
Vote for Joanna jet for president, then we can enjoy being screwed. :coupling::inlove:
Michele Bachmann is coming on strong in Iowa, thanks in large part to the tremendous appeal she has to those who cherish America's wonderful history of fighting for liberty:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/254416/jimmy-kimmel-live-michele-bachmanns-story-of-america?from=fb_share
I was wondering when someone was going to finally get around to posting Michele's gaffes (damn, I'm polite). I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read her statements. I'm not from the US and even I knew she was wrong with what she said.
randolph
07-06-2011, 07:43 PM
I was wondering when someone was going to finally get around to posting Michele's gaffes (damn, I'm polite). I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read her statements. I'm not from the US and even I knew she was wrong with what she said.
Michell and Sarah seem to be in competition in saying stupid things about American history. Most Americans are so clueless, it doesn't matter whether Washington or Lincoln crossed the Delaware. They do know that Ronald Reagan was our greatest President -- or -- was it John Wayne?
Enoch Root
07-06-2011, 08:25 PM
Michell and Sarah seem to be in competition in saying stupid things about American history. Most Americans are so clueless, it doesn't matter whether Washington or Lincoln crossed the Delaware. They do know that Ronald Reagan was our greatest President -- or -- was it John Wayne?
They both acted in Westerns. They're so similar as makes no difference.
TracyCoxx
08-19-2011, 01:03 PM
Randolph on Perry:
For sure, in college he was a "C" student specializing in "Fs" and "Ds". His claim to fame in college? He was a yell leader!
He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The debates between Bachmen and Perry should be quite entertaining.
Not just Bachmann but with any of the GOP candidates. They're all fundamentalist bible thumpers. With all the candidates we have there is still little choice. Our only hope is if these yahoos can keep their religion separate from their job as president. Some can. Perry clearly can not. He just filled a large convention center in Houston to pray for America's financial recovery. So much for separation of church and state. So much for rational thinking. God doesn't balance budgets. Hire a damn economist. Perry would be right at home in the dark ages.
Been reading other forums of R's that have an unfavorable take on Perry.
He is everything that those supporting conservative traits would oppose.
With close to a dozen in the pack, I don't see a leader yet.
Of all , I see Gingritch as capable but still very un-electable.
Romney seems to be ahead, but Im not convinced he would abolish national health care after he implemented it in his own state. I like Gingrich except for his bible thumping ways, but I think he's able to separate that from his job.
randolph
08-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Randolph on Perry:
Not just Bachmann but with any of the GOP candidates. They're all fundamentalist bible thumpers. With all the candidates we have there is still little choice. Our only hope is if these yahoos can keep their religion separate from their job as president. Some can. Perry clearly can not. He just filled a large convention center in Houston to pray for America's financial recovery. So much for separation of church and state. So much for rational thinking. God doesn't balance budgets. Hire a damn economist. Perry would be right at home in the dark ages.
I like the term yahoos for this bunch.
Their position statement is "Don't confuse me with the facts"
Randolph on Perry:
Not just Bachmann but with any of the GOP candidates. They're all fundamentalist bible thumpers. With all the candidates we have there is still little choice. Our only hope is if these yahoos can keep their religion separate from their job as president. Some can. Perry clearly can not. He just filled a large convention center in Houston to pray for America's financial recovery. So much for separation of church and state. So much for rational thinking. God doesn't balance budgets. Hire a damn economist. Perry would be right at home in the dark ages.
The statement that I put in bold is quite funny and unfortunately for the US it's all too true.
transjen
08-21-2011, 04:07 PM
Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
You give them too much credit, dear Jen. The dates you have provided are post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment. You need to find a century in the Dark Ages. :yes:
Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.
One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.
Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.
One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.
If this is what you are being told in Canadian media coverage of the election, your reporters are adopting an unfortunate shorthand. Bachmann appears to be garnering the support of "evangelical Christians" who comprise a large segment of the population who specifically participate as voters in Republican primaries and for whom a small set of social issues trump most other considerations (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion, and so on). Beyond that, only time will tell.
If this is what you are being told in Canadian media coverage of the election, your reporters are adopting an unfortunate shorthand. Bachmann appears to be garnering the support of "evangelical Christians" who comprise a large segment of the population who specifically participate as voters in Republican primaries and for whom a small set of social issues trump most other considerations (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion, and so on). Beyond that, only time will tell.
The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.
randolph
08-21-2011, 08:30 PM
The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.
It's not only evangelical that's is being left out. Many of them are dominionists that want a totalitarian Christian government that imposes their religious views on all of us, similar to the Taliban.
TracyCoxx
08-22-2011, 09:08 AM
Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.
One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.
Bachman isn't the only Jesus freak in the bunch. There are many. Perry is a strong contender for top Jesus freak. Romney and Huntsman are the mormons, and Pawlenty is actually proud of his evangelical heritage. Look up the others, by far, most of them do not believe in evolution, which is the cornerstone of a giant branch of science: biology.
Too bad Gary Johnson isn't a stronger presidential candidate. It would be nice to get a conservative atheist in the White House.
It's not only evangelical that's is being left out. Many of them are dominionists that want a totalitarian Christian government that imposes their religious views on all of us, similar to the Taliban.
That sounds like Huckabee. He wanted the constitution to be aligned more with the bible. I am SOOOOOOOOO glad he dropped out.
SluttyShemaleAnna
08-22-2011, 11:12 AM
The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.
No, the real missing adjective is deranged.
TracyCoxx
09-04-2011, 01:23 AM
While the GOP wannabe Presidents are doing a Mexican hat dance about zero job for Aug and after they finished high fiven each other they started running there mouth and if you listen you will find one pattron to there load of crap
They all claim they will create jobs
How will they do this feet you ask?
For the most part they are not telling but what they do tell is the same old GOP BS about cutting taxes :lol:
this BS has been in affect since 2001 and is still going
So if cutting taxes creates jobs where the :censored: are the jobs
in fact in 2010 the GOP ran for the house claiming they will make jobs there number one duty so to the GOP controled house i ask where are the jobs?
The GOP BS about cutting taxes has never worked and never will
The reason they aren't telling us they want to cut taxes is because the GOP and Obama have kept the tax cuts in place. Obama agreed to this because even he knew that raising them would make a bad job market even worse. Still the GOP has had to fight to keep taxes low and have basically won that fight. The other reason is that there are several things that need to be done to get the economy moving again. Bring the debt down so we can restore our AAA credit rating. Repeal obamacare. Lower gas prices. Restore high tech jobs that Obama eliminated. Enact policies that bring jobs back to the US.
One of the main things that need to be done is to reverse several of Obama's energy policies. Obama has openly stated that his goal was to drive coal companies into bankruptcy and that energy costs under his presidency would necessarily skyrocket. Banning oil drilling sure hasn't helped. If the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up.
And before Tracy chimes in here's a fact for her to chew on when there belove W was in the white house we were in a neg 2000 jobs a month in the hole
The GOP answer is keep the Bush failed policies active and trople down on a loosing hand of failed policies which got us in to this mess to start with
and remember they cry :coupling: the poor
Did you know the unemployment rate under Bush is almost half of the unemployment rate under Obama?
Here's a question for you... What policy of Obama's created the most jobs?
... Did you know the unemployment rate under Bush is almost half of the unemployment rate under Obama? ...
In "Chapters from My Autobiography," published in the North American Review in 1906, Mark Twain wrote: "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics'."
Tracy Coxx knows full well that the current Great Recession began under Bush's watch, and that the statistic to which he alludes simply reflects what Obama inherited from Bush. The unemployment rate rose in the aftermath of the financial meltdown that began in 2007 and proceeded through 2008, while Bush was still in office. By the time Obama was sworn in, the Recession was in full force. To take out of context a statistic about the unemployment rate to make this political point is classic Tracy Coxx, and makes what Tracy wrote -- in the words of Mark Twain -- a lie.
Slavetoebony
09-06-2011, 03:34 PM
I really hate discussing politics on 'adult' forums. But I want Ron Paul to win the election, because he is the only candidate respecting personal liberties.
TracyCoxx
09-08-2011, 12:17 PM
I really hate discussing politics on 'adult' forums. But I want Ron Paul to win the election, because he is the only candidate respecting personal liberties.
With BO's spending sprees I've been thinking Ron Paul is on to something. And yes, he has several good points on personal liberties. After watching him last night I was reminded of how extreme he is. He doesn't come off as a leader either.
randolph
09-08-2011, 12:33 PM
With BO's spending sprees I've been thinking Ron Paul is on to something. And yes, he has several good points on personal liberties. After watching him last night I was reminded of how extreme he is. He doesn't come off as a leader either.
Ron Paul is a classic Ayn Rand type that longs to return to the McKinley era of small federal government. The time when the Rockefellers, the Morgans and other corporate moguls ruled America.
Ron and the teabaggers seem to be devoid of any understanding of history and what it was like before Teddy Roosevelt developed some regulation of corporate greed and repression of industrial workers.
Teddy was a Republican, by the way, concerned for the people and the preservation of the best things America stood for.
TracyCoxx
09-08-2011, 10:13 PM
Ron Paul is a classic Ayn Rand type that longs to return to the McKinley era of small federal government. The time when the Rockefellers, the Morgans and other corporate moguls ruled America.
Ron and the teabaggers seem to be devoid of any understanding of history and what it was like before Teddy Roosevelt developed some regulation of corporate greed and repression of industrial workers.
Teddy was a Republican, by the way, concerned for the people and the preservation of the best things America stood for.
Just like having too little regulation is a bad thing, having too much is also bad. The latter being very difficult to reverse.
Thanks to Andy Borowitz ...
September 14, 2011
A Letter from Rick Perry
Introducing PerryCare?
Dear American,
For the last few weeks I?ve been under constant attack. My opponents would have you believe that if I?m elected, you?ll be stripped of your Social Security benefits and will be scrounging for food in dumpsters with all the desperation of a feral cat.
Of course, that?s true. But what they don?t tell you is what I?d replace Social Security with: an amazing new program I like to call PerryCare?.
Under PerryCare?, you?ll receive all the food, clothing and shelter you need, and it won?t cost a dime in taxes. How if that possible? Simple: you?ll be praying for all those things.
As a PerryCare? recipient, each week you?ll receive in your email box a PerryCare? PrayerMail?, giving you an easy-to-recite prayer for the bread, milk, cat food or whatever else you need to survive. It?s like a Groupon from God.
PerryCare? is more than a replacement for that infernal Ponzi scheme that has bamboozled Americans with regular monthly checks for 75 years. It is part of my larger plan to return prayer to its rightful place in American life. I get down on my knees every night and I promise you, if I am elected your President, I will bring this entire country to its knees.
I expect that some of my opponents will laugh at my plan, especially that lawn gnome Ron Paul and Michele ?Crazy Eyes? Bachmann. Fine, let them laugh! Laughter is the best medicine. And if I am elected, there will be no other medicine.
That brings me to my PerryCare? medical plan, which will replace Medicare once I consign that Ponzi scheme to the electric chair of history. I don?t have enough time to go into the whole plan right now, but here it is in two words: single prayer.
Your next President,
Gov. Rick Perry
transjen
10-24-2011, 11:43 PM
I find it funny that seven of the eight GOP bozos running for president all have a flat tax plan only Paul has not came up with one as he's agianst all taxes period
But back to the seven gop bozos and there flat tax plans ,they say it's best for America everyone will pay less taxes it'll pay off the deficet and create jobs
ah flat tax will deliver us to the promise land :lol:
The true funny thing in this is these same bozos always say Obama care is socialism and him and the Dems want the USA to be like a comminest country
so here are those same bozos all screaming for a flat tax well here's a news flash
Answer me this name me a country who has the flat tax system come on say it, say it go ahead say it the answer is RUSSIA :eek:
Funny how the GOP feels that anything that helps the poor is socialism and anything that helps the ultra rich is good for the country
:rolleyes: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
10-25-2011, 08:16 AM
Answer me this name me a country who has the flat tax system come on say it, say it go ahead say it the answer is RUSSIA :eek:
Funny how the GOP feels that anything that helps the poor is socialism and anything that helps the ultra rich is good for the countryYeah, which was implemented AFTER the fall of communism ;)
Trogdor
10-26-2011, 07:16 AM
If I were to choose, I would say Ron Paul. Apart from his views on abortions and same sex marriage, he's got good ideas. Pity the media gives him limited coverage, as opposed to these drama queens and kings that the others are. :coupling:
Trogdor
10-26-2011, 07:30 AM
One of the main things that need to be done is to reverse several of Obama's energy policies. Obama has openly stated that his goal was to drive coal companies into bankruptcy and that energy costs under his presidency would necessarily skyrocket. Banning oil drilling sure hasn't helped. If the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up.
Problem is, big coal and oil suppress alternative energy sources, plus I am a firm believer in abiotic oil, and the oil companies would wind up selling oil dirt cheap if proven true. I also believe that while abiotic oil is true, we need to use something else, since oil is too valuable to be used for energy....plus I've been to places like L.A., I don't need to see the air get more foul and my eyes burning even more so. I am also a firm believer in zero point energy, and both J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison went all out to destroy Nikola Tesla's reputation and well being, since if he would have gotten it going, it would have meant, safe, clean and free energy for everyone...and both Morgan and Edison did not want that (Edison was a businessman, and an asshole first, and a scientist second)...and Tesla died a penniless and broken man because of them.
Think about it, you really think the oil companies will say, "A new way or energy is found? Great! We will step down as a domineering force and not make billions in profits (and I also believe in abiotic oil since one does NOT make record billions in profit on a dwindling resource) and make way for progress!" Not gonna happen, folks, until someone's got the balls or the tits to tell big oil and coal what they can go do with themselves.
If I were to choose, I would say Ron Paul. Apart from his views on abortions and same sex marriage, he's got good ideas. Pity the media gives him limited coverage, as opposed to these drama queens and kings that the others are. :coupling:
Ron Paul on "Hardball," MSNBC, May 3, 2011, attempting to justify is racist rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Chris Matthews: Let me ask you this: the '64 civil rights bill. Do you think a [em]ployer, a guy runs his shop down in Texas has a right to say, "If you're black, you don't come in my store". That was the libertarian right before '64. Was it the balanced society?
Ron Paul: I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can't walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and states' rights, therefore I'm a racist. I mean that's just outlandish. Wait, Chris. Wait, Chris. People who say that if the law was there and you could do that, who's going to do it? What idiot would do that?
Chris Matthews: Everybody in the South. I saw these signs driving through the South in college. Of course they did it. You remember them doing it.
Ron Paul: Yeah, I but also know that the Jim Crow laws were illegal and we got rid of them under that same law, and that's all good. Government ?
Chris Matthews: But you would've voted against that law.
Ron Paul: Pardon me?
Chris Matthews: You would've voted against that law. You wouldn't have voted for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Yes, but not in ? I wouldn?t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
Chris Matthews: But you would have voted for the ? you know you ? oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Because ? because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.
Chris Matthews: Let me ask you this: I once went to Laundromat when I was at a Peace Corps training in Baker, Louisiana. A Laundromat had this sign on in glaze: "Whites only on the Laundromat", just to use the Laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?
Ron Paul: That's ? that's ancient history. That's ancient history. That's over and done with.
If I were to choose, I would say Ron Paul. Apart from his views on abortions and same sex marriage, he's got good ideas. Pity the media gives him limited coverage, as opposed to these drama queens and kings that the others are. :coupling:
Ron Paul on the separation of church and state:
"The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."
Trogdor
10-26-2011, 07:50 AM
I am referring to his economic stuff, smc.:rolleyes:
I am referring to his economic stuff, smc.:rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want, but you wrote that you would "choose" Ron Paul, presumably to be president since that is the topic of this thread. Your choice, then, includes accepting his social views. I'll leave his economic views -- which are more regressive than even the flat-tax idiots among the other Republican candidates -- for comments from others ... except to say that libertarian economic views are, at their base, an endorsement of "dog eat dog."
Enoch Root
10-26-2011, 08:47 AM
Problem is, big coal and oil suppress alternative energy sources, plus I am a firm believer in abiotic oil, and the oil companies would wind up selling oil dirt cheap if proven true. I also believe that while abiotic oil is true, we need to use something else, since oil is too valuable to be used for energy....plus I've been to places like L.A., I don't need to see the air get more foul and my eyes burning even more so. I am also a firm believer in zero point energy, and both J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison went all out to destroy Nikola Tesla's reputation and well being, since if he would have gotten it going, it would have meant, safe, clean and free energy for everyone...and both Morgan and Edison did not want that (Edison was a businessman, and an asshole first, and a scientist second)...and Tesla died a penniless and broken man because of them.
Think about it, you really think the oil companies will say, "A new way or energy is found? Great! We will step down as a domineering force and not make billions in profits (and I also believe in abiotic oil since one does NOT make record billions in profit on a dwindling resource) and make way for progress!" Not gonna happen, folks, until someone's got the balls or the tits to tell big oil and coal what they can go do with themselves.
So all those academics, they are just keeping quiet about this? They are all bought and paid for by corporations? It's all a giant conspiracy dating several decades at least?
So all those academics, they are just keeping quiet about this? They are all bought and paid for by corporations? It's all a giant conspiracy dating several decades at least?
Hey, I'm an academic! Where do I sign up for these payments? ;)
TracyCoxx
10-26-2011, 09:45 AM
I am also a firm believer in zero point energyZero point energy is a fact. It's been observed. It's not some idea that's being debated.
Think about it, you really think the oil companies will say, "A new way or energy is found? Great! We will step down as a domineering force and not make billions in profits (and I also believe in abiotic oil since one does NOT make record billions in profit on a dwindling resource) and make way for progress!" Not gonna happen, folks, until someone's got the balls or the tits to tell big oil and coal what they can go do with themselves.If a better energy source is found that's more profitable, oil companies have a choice, just as companies like Kodak did when they switched from manufacturing film to digital cameras and digital media. Either go down or join the competition.
TracyCoxx
10-26-2011, 09:50 AM
Ron Paul on the separation of church and state:
"The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."Hold on... just imagining that for a sec... ahhh ok.
Hold on... just imagining that for a sec... ahhh ok.
You do realize that he is advocating AGAINST such a transformation, right?
Enoch Root
10-26-2011, 11:41 AM
Hey, I'm an academic! Where do I sign up for these payments? ;)
Keep it quiet smc. I'll send you the forms for official membership later. For now you can attend the meetings. The are held every Thursday; I'll email you the address. Don't forget your tinfoil hat, your fake piece of moon rock and that piece of dynamite used to blow up the Twin Towers. Special guest this week: JFK and his "assassin." They're good buddies.
TracyCoxx
10-26-2011, 12:18 PM
You do realize that he is advocating AGAINST such a transformation, right?
Yes, of course. I think I've been pretty clear in this thread that i have no love for the religious right. A secular America would be heaven for me
Keep it quiet smc. I'll send you the forms for official membership later. For now you can attend the meetings. The are held every Thursday; I'll email you the address. Don't forget your tinfoil hat, your fake piece of moon rock and that piece of dynamite used to blow up the Twin Towers. Special guest this week: JFK and his "assassin." They're good buddies.
Trogdor deserves a serious response, so here it is.
Regarding the theory that oil is abiotic in origin: This theory hypothesizes that oil is formed not from any organic substance, but from magma. The problemm with the theory is that no one has yet to find any unrefined oil that DOES NOT contain microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. In fact, researchers are able to trace the oil to specific times when the oil was formed.
Now, "scholars" who argue for the abiotic theory (I could not find a single one at my university, which is one of the three leading technological universities in the world) claim that the biotic origin of oil has never been proven, and that the fact that Russia has been exploring and finding "abiotic" oil for decades proves their perspective. This simply ignores the fact stated in the paragraph above.
Ultimately, those who argue for the abiotic theory (contrary to Trogdor's explanation) are proxies for the oil companies, who want to dispel the notion that oil is a finite resource. Were they to embrace that notion, they would be hard-pressed to make a logical case for their massive, funded-with-billions-of-dollars opposition to alternative energy development.
St. Araqiel
10-26-2011, 06:42 PM
Whoever wins the nomination, I, for one, pray it causes the "Republican" Party to self-destruct. After that, the "Democrats" are next. Bye-bye, Republicrats. The Constitution Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United States)) is the true face of American conservatism. Of course, I'm no fan of their Christian-nationalist "cultural mandate" views, among others, but at least they really are fiscally conservative, unlike the tax-and-spend neocons with their "trickle-down" bullshit.
Trogdor
10-26-2011, 08:30 PM
Zero point energy is a fact. It's been observed. It's not some idea that's being debated.
If a better energy source is found that's more profitable, oil companies have a choice, just as companies like Kodak did when they switched from manufacturing film to digital cameras and digital media. Either go down or join the competition.
Since when do corporations and big businesses compete honestly?
If the zero point energy comes to pass, there will be no competition. If free energy comes to pass, no one will be competing, since it would be pointless. Telsa's life was ruined by J.P. Morgan and Edison, because he wanted to make free, clean energy for all...not something to sell, and I say if energy can be harnessed and made for dirt cheap or costing nothing, that would be like breaking the chains, as it were, since we're pretty much enslaved by big oil.
And energy companies, especially oil companies, are not exactly the most honorable or honest of people. It's interesting when I read articles of scientists who are in the fields of alternative energy found dead under mysterious circumstance, and they are often said to be suicides, I can not believe that many alternative energy scientists are THAT depressed.
Keep it quiet smc. I'll send you the forms for official membership later. For now you can attend the meetings. The are held every Thursday; I'll email you the address. Don't forget your tinfoil hat, your fake piece of moon rock and that piece of dynamite used to blow up the Twin Towers. Special guest this week: JFK and his "assassin." They're good buddies.
Good thing I never speak of hyper-dimensional physics, or any other non main stream topics with you, since all I'd read here would be petty sarcasm and what not.
TracyCoxx
10-26-2011, 10:19 PM
If the zero point energy comes to pass, there will be no competition.Zero point energy does just fine without us and already exists in nature. It is the reason that liquid helium can not freeze, no matter how cold it gets.
If free energy comes to pass, no one will be competing, since it would be pointless.Unless you can concentrate and fire off free energy beams from your palms you'll need some device to create it and make use of it. It will be made by evil corporations. Oh sure, it may start in Bobby's garage, but Bobby will get a patent on it and begin his evil empire... making money off his ingenuity. gasp But I wouldn't hold your breath. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids it. You may argue against it, but to do so, you'd have to start by saying there are more ordered states than disordered states of a system. Entropy always increases.
Telsa's life was ruined by J.P. Morgan and Edison, because he wanted to make free, clean energy for all...not something to sell, and I say if energy can be harnessed and made for dirt cheap or costing nothing, that would be like breaking the chains, as it were, since we're pretty much enslaved by big oil.Tesla may have been picked on, but that doesn't change the fact about entropy. And btw, you're not enslaved by big oil. Go ride your bike. Convert your vehicle into bio-diesel. Use solar energy. Use your powerful intellect, which allows you to argue against modern physicists and claim that free energy is possible and build your own perpetual motion machine. You're only enslaved by big oil if you accept the status quo and follow the herd.
And energy companies, especially oil companies, are not exactly the most honorable or honest of people. It's interesting when I read articles of scientists who are in the fields of alternative energy found dead under mysterious circumstance, and they are often said to be suicides, I can not believe that many alternative energy scientists are THAT depressed.You must admit that a hypothetical conspiracy theorist wearing a tin foil hat might say such things.
Good thing I never speak of hyper-dimensional physics, or any other non main stream topics with you, since all I'd read here would be petty sarcasm and what not.Please do. I've dabbled in 5 dimensional physics so I'd be interested in the discussion.
Trogdor
10-26-2011, 11:33 PM
Zero point energy does just fine without us and already exists in nature. It is the reason that liquid helium can not freeze, no matter how cold it gets.
Unless you can concentrate and fire off free energy beams from your palms you'll need some device to create it and make use of it. It will be made by evil corporations. Oh sure, it may start in Bobby's garage, but Bobby will get a patent on it and begin his evil empire... making money off his ingenuity. gasp But I wouldn't hold your breath. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids it. You may argue against it, but to do so, you'd have to start by saying there are more ordered states than disordered states of a system. Entropy always increases.
Tesla may have been picked on, but that doesn't change the fact about entropy. And btw, you're not enslaved by big oil. Go ride your bike. Convert your vehicle into bio-diesel. Use solar energy. Use your powerful intellect, which allows you to argue against modern physicists and claim that free energy is possible and build your own perpetual motion machine. You're only enslaved by big oil if you accept the status quo and follow the herd.
You must admit that a hypothetical conspiracy theorist wearing a tin foil hat might say such things.
Please do. I've dabbled in 5 dimensional physics so I'd be interested in the discussion.
I'll be glad to discuss that, we can make a thread about that.
And PLEASE lay off the god damned tinfoil hat thing, it's like someone says something so non mainstream that the typical American Idol/Dancing with the Stars slobs can't even think of, makes it's so 'conspiracy theorist'. I mean why are so many of these fellows found dead? And big companies doing despicable things is not a new concept. I mean if rich individuals can get away with heinous crimes....just look at any of those folks who get off with murder or narcotics because he or she had the $$$ to pass around. Could see big oil doing that, too.
And back to the other bit, before some people start screaming tinfoil hat (again), the when the first American satellite was launched, several key, mainstream physics were not just broken, but thrown out the window during the course of those events. I'll post that stuff up later, once I can gather up all my notes and papers on it.
This is unrealistic, because in my experience cats are generally more intelligent than Republican primary voters.
2CAghlRkbpA
Enoch Root
10-27-2011, 12:59 PM
I'll be glad to discuss that, we can make a thread about that.
And PLEASE lay off the god damned tinfoil hat thing, it's like someone says something so non mainstream that the typical American Idol/Dancing with the Stars slobs can't even think of, makes it's so 'conspiracy theorist'. I mean why are so many of these fellows found dead? And big companies doing despicable things is not a new concept. I mean if rich individuals can get away with heinous crimes....just look at any of those folks who get off with murder or narcotics because he or she had the $$$ to pass around. Could see big oil doing that, too.
And back to the other bit, before some people start screaming tinfoil hat (again), the when the first American satellite was launched, several key, mainstream physics were not just broken, but thrown out the window during the course of those events. I'll post that stuff up later, once I can gather up all my notes and papers on it.
I wish you luck on your anomaly hunting.
Breaking News: the earth is expanding! (also it's flat and all the scientists are keeping it quiet)
Zero point energy does just fine without us and already exists in nature. It is the reason that liquid helium can not freeze, no matter how cold it gets.
It's been many years since I took physics and chemistry, but I do remember reading that everything freezes at absolute zero -273*C.
btw cannot is one word not two.
Trogdor
10-27-2011, 05:22 PM
Breaking News: the earth is expanding! (also it's flat and all the scientists are keeping it quiet)
Where's a good middle finger smiley when one needs to use one?:rolleyes:
People like you make me sad, Enoch.:p
TracyCoxx
10-27-2011, 10:26 PM
It's been many years since I took physics and chemistry, but I do remember reading that everything freezes at absolute zero -273*C.Remember quantum mechanics? Due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can never bring particles (like electrons) to absolute rest, like you might think would happen at absolute zero. The minimum energy would be (1/2)hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the oscillation frequency associated with the De Broglie wavelength of the electron. This would be the zero-point energy, and does prevent liquid helium from freezing... at least below a pressure of 25 atms.
btw cannot is one word not two.seriously?
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html
TracyCoxx
10-27-2011, 10:27 PM
Where's a good middle finger smiley when one needs to use one?:rolleyes:
It's like this: ,,|, ;)
Remember quantum mechanics? Due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can never bring particles (like electrons) to absolute rest, like you might think would happen at absolute zero. The minimum energy would be (1/2)hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the oscillation frequency associated with the De Broglie wavelength of the electron. This would be the zero-point energy, and does prevent liquid helium from freezing... at least below a pressure of 25 atms.
All the references that I checked said helium would freeze at 1 - 1.5*K, but they also agree with your statement that helium has to be compressed before it will freeze. Of course compressing gases is one way to bring down the temperature.
seriously?
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html
Yes, seriously and your reference backs up my statement as does the Oxford English Dictiionary.
TracyCoxx
10-28-2011, 08:05 PM
All the references that I checked said helium would freeze at 1 - 1.5*K, but they also agree with your statement that helium has to be compressed before it will freeze. Of course compressing gases is one way to bring down the temperature.Without raising the pressure helium would stay liquid at absolute zero. You can not bring it down any further than absolute zero, but raising the pressure will still do the trick.
franalexes
10-28-2011, 08:58 PM
Not exactly:
The devil is in the details. Increasing pressure increases temperature.
If the gas temperature is increased, then you have a heat source that can be cooled. Releasing the pressure after cooling will cause more cooling since without pressure the helium would boil and evaporation is a cooling process.
Result: froozen!
Just put water in a closed container and create a vacuum. The water will boil without adding heat, but boiling / evaporation is a cooling process and the boiling water will change to ice.
It's like telling the boys they can't play with me; they get boiling mad and their attitude turns to ice. ( I don't have to give a referance do I ? ):frown:
TracyCoxx
10-28-2011, 09:20 PM
I'm very pleased with the way this thread is going. Physics is so much more interesting than politics :turnon:
I'm very pleased with the way this thread is going. Physics is so much more interesting than politics :turnon:
I won't further derail this thread by posting anything more on physics, however feel free to start a thread about physics.
franalexes
10-29-2011, 05:30 PM
I won't further derail this thread by posting anything more on physics, however feel free to start a thread about physics.
The thread isn't derailed. It seems to be on a different track.
Wouldn't a good moderator be able to move the physics posts to a new thread? Would be a shame to loose the continuity.
Please Ila, pretty please. :innocent::hug: or are you going to sleep on the couch anyway?
paladin68
12-09-2011, 01:22 AM
The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.
I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.
paladin68
12-09-2011, 01:31 AM
I am continually amazed at how far into debt the US is going (they aren't the only country either). I am also amazed that the solution seems to be to keep printing more money. Eventually the US dollar will be worth nothing. Unfortunately the money traders of the world have yet to wake up to this fact. I keep reading in newspapers the currency fluctuations are due to money traders fleeing for the safe haven of the US dollar. Gives one food for thought.
That's why i'm holding onto my gold & silver. but the dollar won't be worth nothing, there is no other currency that can replace it. Of course that won't prevent quite the mess if we keep on down this spend into oblivion and then print money causing further dilution of our currency.
We haven't quite gotten to the level that Germany was in when you needed a wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread, and if you waited until the next day, you needed TWO wheelbarrows of marks!
I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.
And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive. :frown:
paladin68
12-09-2011, 06:18 PM
And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive. :frown:
Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.
The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...
I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.
There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?
Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.
The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...
I put NO WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. Perhaps a remedial course in reading is in order. :rolleyes:
And as for the notion that you "didn't register an opinion one way or another," well, I'll leave it to all the sentient beings who might read your post to come to the obvious conclusion.
paladin68
12-09-2011, 08:51 PM
There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?
We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.
As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.
And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.
We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.
As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.
And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.
You wrote:
"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."
Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.
As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there.
As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.
paladin68
12-10-2011, 10:45 PM
You wrote:As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.
No sense of humor either.
You wrote:
"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."
Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.
As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there
Stating it will cause a distraction is NOT taking a position one way or the other.
You are referring to PAST events. I am referring to the present and future. There IS a difference.
TracyCoxx
12-29-2011, 01:18 PM
The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.
I guess for most it's safer and in there best intrest to remain unseen
which is sad as this is 2011 not 1955
But sadly there are those who believe that beating up a cross dresser or a Tgirl is there God given right and also it's there God given right to beatup anyone who likes or heaven forbid actualy date one of us :eek:
Are there people like that in the military?
Of course, there are, just as there are in any other segment of society.
Ila, the quoted section from transjen illustrates the reality in America. It may be different in other countries, but for now, this attitude exists here, as smc confirms. I don't know why, when we're talking directly about DADT, everyone pretends like this problem between gays and certain rednecks don't exist, but while not directly discussing DADT it seems everyone knows this to be true.
Yes, smc is right. These people who believe it's their god given right to beat up gays & transgendered people exist in the military, just like in any segment of society (unless there are a greater percentage of rednecks in the military than in the general population?). It is a distraction. I'm certainly not saying it should be a distraction, but it is. If I want a job to get done, I'm not going to put a bully and his target together to work on the job right? Unlike in the general population, distractions in the military can potentially cost lives.
transjen
01-03-2012, 12:09 AM
In a few hours Iowa will start the primaries kicking off the offical run for the white house
I find it funny when you hear all the talking heads debate and bicker over the reason why most of the GOP voters still are shopping for who to support
Just about everyone except Huntsman have had there 15 min of being king of the hill
Sadly the real reason behind this goes unsaid
Yes there is a reason why this is happening
While the talking heads are scared to say the reason i'm not
The reason the poll numbers are up then down and the top keeps changing is all so simple they are all interchangeable and all there ideas are pretty much the same, everyone is on there own lower taxes for the rich do away with all regulations do away with corprate taxs do away with all goverment spending except miltary and start war with Iran
So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
01-03-2012, 07:03 PM
So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term threeWhich allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!
franalexes
01-03-2012, 07:56 PM
When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!
transjen
01-03-2012, 11:55 PM
When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!
when is W going to admit he screwed up the country? he still cliams he made no mistakes
durng W's final year we were losing a average of 75 k jobs a month
Obama has stopped that trend and the private sector has been adding jobs each month and this is while the GOP governors have been on a job cutting spree cutting state jobs just to keep the unemployment numbers high
And how can he do anything when the GOP always says no to everything
The GOP goals to to wreck the econemy just to take over
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
transjen
01-04-2012, 12:00 AM
Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!
Well W deserves all the credit, he made this mess and Obama has been fixing it which isn't easy when he's blocked at every turn by the GOP
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
franalexes
01-04-2012, 09:23 AM
Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.
Governors regardless of D's or R's with the help of their legislatures have had to cut funding because the poor economy results in lower income for the States and they wish not to become as indebted as Obama has pushed this nation.
Borrow all the money you can, increase your debt, and then tell me how rich you are. REALLY!and if you aren't rich after doing that it's not my fault because I convinced you to do it.
franalexes
01-05-2012, 09:10 AM
Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."
Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."
I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion.
If the politicians of both major parties were serious about ensuring jobs, they would have created them ... period. There are tremendous needs in this country to do things that only government does. The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.
I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion...
Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?
franalexes
01-05-2012, 11:54 AM
I The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.
"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.
Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?
Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.
"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.
Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.
I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.
That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.
That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.
The deregulation of the financial markets began, in earnest, with the repeal of provisions of the Glass?Steagall Act via the Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act in 1999. Clinton was president. Bush Jr. accelerated the process. This is why I continue to make the point that both major parties -- which serve the interests of the monied class -- are the political architects of the current situation. Obama brought into his administration the very people who started all this crap under Clinton, including Lawrence Summers.
franalexes
01-05-2012, 08:09 PM
Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.
I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? :frown: Probably not.:respect:
First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? :frown: Probably not.:respect:
I'll let you play your rhetorical games while I engage in serious discourse.
You are correct that I should have stated more precisely that I meant public schools. But pretty much anyone with a brain who was also inclined to have a serious discussion would have known what I meant, and that I did not mean that private schools are built by the government (although nearly every private school in this country, even those of what you call "faith based origin," get some government funding in one form or another). There ... satisfied now?
And while you may claim not to know who Grover Norquist is, I dare say that you certainly know of his work. He is the founder and leader of Americans for Tax Reform, and the author of the ridiculous "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that has been signed by 95 percent of all Republicans in Congress and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates. You know the pledge; it's the one that makes Republicans do ridiculous stuff like working against extending the payroll tax cut extension because it can be interpreted (only in the most asinine way) as a tax increase by simply turning logic on its head.
That pledge, by the way, of which you are aware (I know this, franalexes, because you could not possibly be aware of many of the things of which you write without being aware of the pledge, since they are mentioned in the same sentences on websites, in news reports, and elsewere, without respect to party or end of the political spectrum, and to be unaware of it would require a type of filtering of which the human brain is not capable), reads as follows:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
transjen
01-06-2012, 05:14 PM
Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."
Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
lets look at just the last six months of W and each month the econemy lost between 600k to 800k jobs each month and when the rein of W finaly came to an end his record had way more jobs lost then jobs added
For 2011 100k on average was added not great but we are headed in the right direction even with the GOP doing everything they can to :coupling: the econemy and hinder job growth
Jersey's piece of crap governor since day one has been on a job elimition program
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
franalexes
01-06-2012, 07:10 PM
Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
Jerseygirl Jen
In a word, NO.
transjen
01-07-2012, 12:29 AM
In a word, NO.
YES!!!!!!! W lost those and more jobs under his failed policies
W destoryed the US encomny
And Obama has been rebuliding it with no help from the GOP
Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.
And we were promised that free trade, deregulation, union-busting, and cutting the top marginal tax rates for the 1% would cure all our economic woes under W (and earlier administrations). We see where that got us. So it's far from the first time that political promises were, at best miscalculations, and at worst, outright lies.
Chichester, I saw your posting in Justice and wasn't sure how it fit in there, but it is a subject on its own that I'm concerned about. It's time to see if a GOP candidate that doesn't in some remote way relate back to Reagan, can win. And if ANY GOP candidate can't win against Obama the GOP really should pack it up and never show their face again, and the curse often attributed to Alexander Tytler has become a reality.
I think many of the current GOP candidates will have the same problem McCain had: Conservative voters were not impressed that McCain was conservative enough, so bizarrely they elected the most far left president the country has ever had.
The obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread will of course be obvious, but to the few conservatives out there, what do you think of this round of GOP candidates?
TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.
TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.
I don't know if this is sarcasm or not...But among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY sane candidate who actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution. Further, he believes in sound fiscal policy...A policy that would starve the Fed's ability to blindly print dollars and devalue our currency. This in turn would starve our ability to deficit finance multiple trillion dollar wars, globe trotting adventurism, and our ever-ballooning federal government. Other candidates like to talk about small government-- but their voting records often betray their talk. Paul is the one GOP candidate that has at least been consistent over the past couple of decades, and in my mind, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who actually stands for what Republicans of history have stood for.
I don't know if this is sarcasm or not...But among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY sane candidate who actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution. Further, he believes in sound fiscal policy...A policy that would starve the Fed's ability to blindly print dollars and devalue our currency. This in turn would starve our ability to deficit finance multiple trillion dollar wars, globe trotting adventurism, and our ever-ballooning federal government. Other candidates like to talk about small government-- but their voting records often betray their talk. Paul is the one GOP candidate that has at least been consistent over the past couple of decades, and in my mind, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who actually stands for what Republicans of history have stood for.
No sarcasm.
This is unrealistic, because in my experience cats are generally more intelligent than Republican primary voters.
2CAghlRkbpA
Really, I am a republican primary voter.:rolleyes:
transjen
01-09-2012, 02:47 PM
OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
And then there's that Judge Judy idiot! ;)
TSKarinaGiselle
01-09-2012, 04:05 PM
I don't know which party he's at but, he'd get my vote for sure!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DFXXAuDK1Ao
Young_facial
01-09-2012, 06:49 PM
Hahaha that's way better than cat bowl
transjen
01-10-2012, 05:44 PM
I feel the GOP should save time and just have each canadate give a speech and which ever one mentions Ronald Reagan the most time wins :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
paladin68
01-11-2012, 10:25 PM
Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?
Only if they are rational, my friend.
There's a great Letter to the Editor in today's issue of The Boston Globe:
I have seen Mitt Romney?s former company, Bain Capital, referred to as "vulture capitalists.?" I don?t think that?s accurate.
Vultures, at least, wait until something is dead before profiting from it by killing, eviscertaing, and consuming it. This comparison is unfair to vultures.
Hey, Jen, I thought you might get a particular kick out of it!
transjen
01-15-2012, 04:46 PM
There's a great Letter to the Editor in today's issue of The Boston Globe:
I have seen Mitt Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, referred to as "vulture capitalists.’" I don’t think that’s accurate.
Vultures, at least, wait until something is dead before profiting from it by killing, eviscertaing, and consuming it. This comparison is unfair to vultures.
Hey, Jen, I thought you might get a particular kick out of it!
While i'm not surpised to hear that Mitt profitted from doing away with jobs what i do find surpising is to hear these charges from his own party
After all this is what the GOP fight and stand for the rich getting richer and the midclass becoming the new poor
Mitt is so full of it when he claims Bain was in business to make jobs
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP Bain was in busness for Mitt and his partners to make money by gutting companies and taking the profits and run
and now the GOP is blasting Newt and Perry for attacking Mitt on his suscess
Mitt's and the rest of the GOP agenda is for a race to the bottom
low pay jobs no workers rights no rules turn the clock back to the days of the robber barons
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
transjen
01-15-2012, 05:27 PM
Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Enoch Root
01-15-2012, 06:28 PM
Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Now that is one of the ironies of this corporate personhood nonsense I never noticed. Thanks for the video Jen.
Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
I love that John Lithgow agreed to narrate.
Enoch Root
01-15-2012, 07:19 PM
I love that John Lithgow agreed to narrate.
For a while there I thought it was Dan Aykroyd narrating.
TracyCoxx
01-16-2012, 05:33 PM
TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.
I think Ron Paul would be a much better choice against Obama. He wouldn't be my first pick against Obama. Sure he'd slash government, but he'd also make us an isolationist country. We should pull back in some parts of the world, but not all. And I couldn't picture the leader of our country with a whiney voice like his. He's another religious nutjob, but who on the GOP side isn't? But yeah, I'd take him over BO.
randolph
01-22-2012, 12:45 PM
When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.
TracyCoxx
01-22-2012, 03:26 PM
When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.
After the 2010 routing of the democrats as a result of BO's, Pelosi's & Reid's agenda you'd have to wonder how BO has any chance in 2012. But on the other hand, I know it will be difficult... not sure why. I guess because BO somehow got elected in the first place.
transjen
01-22-2012, 10:14 PM
After the 2010 routing of the democrats as a result of BO's, Pelosi's & Reid's agenda you'd have to wonder how BO has any chance in 2012. But on the other hand, I know it will be difficult... not sure why. I guess because BO somehow got elected in the first place.
An we all see how well that worked out
they are the least productive house of reps of all time and cost us out top credit rating by almost shutting down the goverment and refusing to make any kind of deal what so even
BO has an excellent chance of a second term and the chances improve when the remaining for bozos only answer is trickle down cut taxes and bring out the Reagan playbook in other words lets go back to the same policies that started this mess to start with
Face the cold hard facts the whole GOP strongly believe in closing your eyes and hoping things fix themselves
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
transjen
01-22-2012, 10:17 PM
When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Buddy Holly said it a long time ago
THAT'LL BE THE DAY
:turnoff: jERSEYGIRL jEN
randolph
01-22-2012, 10:17 PM
I am beginning to think the unthinkable. What if Jeb Bush (a moderate Republican) was elected President and Congress was controlled by the Republicans. What would happen?
Would they pull together and do things for the country? Or--would they turn the country into a full fledged plutocracy.
Continuing the way things are is very bad for the country with endless logjams bickering and stalemates, we have no effective government. For more years of this and we could see a real depression with violence in the streets.
We should be taking a close look at the Wiemar Republic. :eek:
transjen
01-22-2012, 10:31 PM
take a GOP president add a GOP controled house then add a GOP controled senate and add the lop sided GOP controled unsurpme court that equals the USA being a thrid world country
plus look at the top three remaining canadates and we'll be reliving the holy crusades
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
randolph
01-22-2012, 10:45 PM
take a GOP president add a GOP controled house then add a GOP controled senate and add the lop sided GOP controled unsurpme court that equals the USA being a thrid world country
plus look at the top three remaining canadates and we'll be reliving the holy crusades
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Yeah, one of the top three could put us into the stone age with Islamists paddling over here in rowboats.
transjen
01-22-2012, 10:51 PM
Yeah, one of the top three could put us into the stone age with Islamists paddling over here in rowboats.
A president Mitt or president Newt or president Rick will have us refighting the holy crusades and will unleash a nucler hellacaust sending who ever is left in to the stoneages
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
01-25-2012, 09:16 AM
An we all see how well that worked out
they are the least productive house of reps of all time and cost us out top credit rating by almost shutting down the goverment and refusing to make any kind of deal what so even
Jen, it's time to wake up. What I'm about to show you may come as a shock, but it's from the real world.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110806
The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
The article goes on to say:
On August 2, President Barack Obama signed legislation designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But that was well short of the $4 trillion in savings S&P had called for as a good "down payment" on fixing America's finances.
That's why we lost our AAA credit rating - because we didn't cut enough. So ask yourself, why has the House been ineffective? Because Obama - the guy who's $2.1 trillion plan falls short of the $4 trillion requirement - has veto power. If any part of this isn't clear please speak up now, otherwise I know I'll have to drudge up facts again.
BO has an excellent chance of a second term ...
As long as people ignore the facts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Srpu8es8
randolph
01-25-2012, 09:43 AM
Re: Obama's speech.
Where has this guy been? :frown:
transjen
01-25-2012, 02:49 PM
Jen, it's time to wake up. What I'm about to show you may come as a shock, but it's from the real world.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110806
The article goes on to say:
That's why we lost our AAA credit rating - because we didn't cut enough. So ask yourself, why has the House been ineffective? Because Obama - the guy who's $2.1 trillion plan falls short of the $4 trillion requirement - has veto power. If any part of this isn't clear please speak up now, otherwise I know I'll have to drudge up facts again.
As long as people ignore the facts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Srpu8es8
And who's fault is that they didn't give him a bill with the 4 trillion cut?
Have you forgotton the BS from the Tea party wing of the GOP who refused to make or agree to anything unless social security was ended while the rich have there taxes lowered even more
THE BIGGEST PART OF THE ENTIRE DEFICT IS FROM w'S TAX CUTS AND HIS UNFONDED WARS
and the teaparty refuses to make the rich start paying there share
Nice to see you still live in the land of make believe the land that holds W and the GOP blameless for everything
and once people fully listen to the GOP plans to fix everything is going back to the same old failed polices of Reagan Bush and Bush just cut taxes for the rich and everyone will live happy ever after
welcome to the world of make believe folks our god is Ronald Reagan and our patron saint is any one named Bush
and our gods number one rule is the rich shall never be taxed after all thats what the poor are for
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
01-26-2012, 12:00 AM
And who's fault is that they didn't give him a bill with the 4 trillion cut?BO's. He would veto anything with cuts that big.
Have you forgotton the BS from the Tea party wing of the GOP who refused to make or agree to anything unless social security was ended while the rich have there taxes lowered even moreI believe their demands were no new taxes
blame bush crap snipped
and the teaparty refuses to make the rich start paying there shareThe rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.
Nice to see you still live in the land of make believe the land that holds W and the GOP blameless for everything
and once people fully listen to the GOP plans to fix everything is going back to the same old failed polices of Reagan Bush and Bush just cut taxes for the rich and everyone will live happy ever afterWas W pushing for higher cuts? No. Was W pushing for lower cuts? No. New taxes? No. Anything? No. HE WASN'T IN OFFICE LAST SUMMER! Stick to the subject. You were talking about how the house of reps cost us our credit rating. They were pushing for larger cuts last summer but BO would veto anything higher than $2.1 trillion in cuts. That's why we lost our credit rating.
transjen
01-26-2012, 02:38 AM
BO's. He would veto anything with cuts that big.
I believe their demands were no new taxes
blame bush crap snipped
The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.
Was W pushing for higher cuts? No. Was W pushing for lower cuts? No. New taxes? No. Anything? No. HE WASN'T IN OFFICE LAST SUMMER! Stick to the subject. You were talking about how the house of reps cost us our credit rating. They were pushing for larger cuts last summer but BO would veto anything higher than $2.1 trillion in cuts. That's why we lost our credit rating.
That was all the teaparty wanted to do was cut cut and put all the burden on the poor, everyone but the GOP said point blank that cuts plus raising taxes were need but the teaparty was all cuts and wouldn't give they wanted the goverment to shot down they said we can then pick and choose what bills get paid BO didn't say those things the teaparty did news flash the GOP are at fault
It was W's taxcuts the teaparty didn't want to touch so in away he was involved
So your with Mitt and Newt crying boo hoo hoo the rich pay to much and the poor don't pay enought
Jerseygirl Jen
The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.
This is bullshit, and you know it. The rich -- e.g., Romney -- are in a position to "earn" their "income" via non-work (capital gains) and pay armies of accountants to find every possible loophole (created for them).
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ... and more bullshit.
transjen
01-26-2012, 01:18 PM
Of course you do know that if the teaparty would have been willing to work with the president instead of demanding our way or nothing a deal for the 4 trillion could have been reached in a fair way consisting of the 2 trillion in cuts and ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich consisting of 2 trillion that would have gave us the 4 trillion needed
But the teaparty wanted nothing to do with makeing rich people going from a base rate of 30% up to 33% base rate and as Mitt has shown he already pays nowhere near 30% and yet the GOP cry his taxes are to to high
Jerseygirl Jen
transjen
01-26-2012, 10:50 PM
So Newt wants to have a fully up and running moonbase on the moon by the end of his second term :lol:
Now all the GOP bozos are screaming about the trillons of debit and want to cut everything and yet here's Newt wanting to waste trillions on a dream
didn't we learn a lesson after showing a brain dead move actor Star Wars Reagan came up with his Star War defence system that cost us billions of wasted funds for a mini deathstar that was surposed to orbit the earth and be able to fire a deatray anywhere on the planet
So i guess someone showed Newt an old sci-fi tv show and like Reagan he comes up with a huge money wasting idea
http://youtu.be/vt8Nb2SbKog
who ever showed Newt this show needs a foot up his ass
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
01-26-2012, 11:09 PM
That was all the teaparty wanted to do was cut cut and put all the burden on the poorIt was Obama who put the burden on the poor when he spent trillions on useless stimulus packages without raising taxes. Because it's going to have to be paid off sometime, and even if the rich paid all their money into taxes it wouldn't be enough, so the poor MUST help pay off the debt as well eventually. And yes, that was Obama's decision not to raise taxes.
TracyCoxx
01-26-2012, 11:33 PM
So Newt wants to have a fully up and running moonbase on the moon by the end of his second term :lol:
Now all the GOP bozos are screaming about the trillons of debit and want to cut everything and yet here's Newt wanting to waste trillions on a dream
didn't we learn a lesson after showing a brain dead move actor Star Wars Reagan came up with his Star War defence system that cost us billions of wasted funds for a mini deathstar that was surposed to orbit the earth and be able to fire a deatray anywhere on the planet
So i guess someone showed Newt an old sci-fi tv show and like Reagan he comes up with a huge money wasting idea
http://youtu.be/vt8Nb2SbKog
who ever showed Newt this show needs a foot up his ass
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.
A moon colony has nothing to do with a real or imagined missile defense system. I'm in the business and while I'd love to see it happen I doubt it will at least not in 8 years, because yes, it will be expensive. What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.
transjen
01-28-2012, 07:11 PM
It was Obama who put the burden on the poor when he spent trillions on useless stimulus packages without raising taxes. Because it's going to have to be paid off sometime, and even if the rich paid all their money into taxes it wouldn't be enough, so the poor MUST help pay off the debt as well eventually. And yes, that was Obama's decision not to raise taxes.
OH i forgot that W had nothing to do with most of the debit like his two unfonded wars and his tax cuts for the rich
You and the rest of the GOP are so quick to shove the debit that W ran up over to the current president
W was given a balanced budget and a surplus and he flush both away with his first round of tax cuts then he started two unfonded wars followed by another round of tax cuts for the rich
Obama was unable to raise taxs because the GOP scream if the rich have to pay taxs the world would end
If the taxs on the poor go up the GOP don't give a shit they only care about the rich not paying taxs
Taxs going up is a delayed FU from W
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
transjen
01-29-2012, 01:36 AM
A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.
WOW that's a major spin on Reagans stars wars defence system
But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?
oh wait i guess that paid for the weapons sent to Iran that Oliver North was the patsy for
by the by Russia didn't go bankrupt because of trying to make an anti star wars system it was the war in Afgan that bankrupted em
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
TracyCoxx
01-29-2012, 09:39 AM
But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?SDI research. But it wasn't the mass infusion of money that you imply. It was just $5 billion/year. That's $2 billion more than cash for clunkers. A drop in the bucket. Nothing like the hundreds of billions it would take to actually implement it.
What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.
Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes. If New Hampshire needs a bridge, let's promise a bridge! Florida lost jobs in the space industry, so let's promise more space industry jobs!
He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?" The taxpayers you can be certain. Pretty odd talk coming from a politician who alleges to be for cutting the size of government and government spending.
Further, comparing the $5 billion/year on Star Wars spending to the $2 billion spent on cash for clunkers is really an apples to oranges comparison because you're not adjusting 1980's dollars for inflation. $5 billion was worth a LOT more back then than it'd be worth today.
...I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes...
You're right that he is pandering for votes, but that's what the majority of policticians do.
TracyCoxx
01-30-2012, 11:32 PM
Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida.Not sure what the attitude is all about but whatever. Newt has been known to have a higher than average interest in space, and many if the ideas he's proposed in Florida has been mentioned by him repeatedly long before he even started campaigning.
He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?"Who pays airlines after the aviation infrastructure had finally been put in place? Customers. Yes, it does take seed money from the government to get it started. Unfortunately the way it's been running is very inefficient with each new president wanting to play rocket scientist. But this time it's going to require a president with some interest in space to undo the damage Obama has done to our manned space program.
TracyCoxx
01-30-2012, 11:57 PM
p.s. I am rather surprised by a move that Romney made. He's always struck me as someone who couldn't give a crap about space. In response to Newt's speeches on space he's said he's going to put together a team and study it. And I'm thinking, oh no, here we go again with another think tank to tell us what we all know, that Nasa should be X Y & Z but that Nasa is underfunded, but this time we're going to fund it, but then it never really gets funded and we're back to square one again.
You don't need another space commission to figure it out. The Aldridge Commission got it exactly right. They put together a plan for a space program that wasn't just about putting foot prints on the moon, or attempting to inspire kids with visions of astronauts floating around in the space station slurping up floating balls of tang. They saw the solar system as a place full of resources that could be tapped and put together a plan to build up our capabilities in space to live off the land and get it done. Obama had another commission, which concluded the Aldridge commission was right, but that it would cost more money. Unfortunately at that time Obama was done giving out trillion dollar bills, and the extra 3 billion was just too much. And I wasn't interested in Romney's commission doing the same thing over again and coming up with the same answer again while wasting another few years and more money.
Then I heard who his advisers are: Robert Crippen, Gene Cernan, and Michael Griffin. Three people... well maybe two (Robert Crippen's a great guy who was in the right place at the right time, but I'm talking about the elites) of probably around 10 who really could do this right. The best of the best. And Romney has them? He couldn't possibly know what to do with them.
transjen
02-01-2012, 07:06 PM
So Mitt admits he can care less about poor people no surpise there after all he's GOP
then comes the lie he quickly states the poor have safetynets so they are fine :lol:
Excuss me but the GOP have for decades wanted and do everything they can to ripe to shreds any safenets that help the poor after all safenets that help the poor is socialism
So the poor have safetynets which he and the rest of the GOP have stated time and time agian there goal is to do away with all safety nets
Just a anoter :coupling: from the GOP
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
ps remember that an aborted baby can't grow up to become a died solider :no:
randolph
02-01-2012, 07:33 PM
The GOPers know the poor don't vote.
randolph
02-01-2012, 11:41 PM
Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.
From Huffpost,
Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.
The study, published in Psychological Science (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract), showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I.Q., or intelligence quotient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient), is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html).
Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.
Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."
But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones.
In any case, the study has taken the Internet by storm, with some outspoken liberals saying that it validates their suspicions about conservatives (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/26/science-proves-conservatives-are-dumb) and conservatives arguing that the research has been misinterpreted (http://www.care2.com/causes/new-study-links-racism-and-conservative-beliefs-with-low-iq.html).
What do you think? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent? Or is this just political opinion masquerading as science?
TracyCoxx
02-02-2012, 01:02 PM
Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.
From Huffpost,]]
I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.
Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.
From Huffpost,
Junk science masquerading as legitimate fact.
randolph
02-02-2012, 07:59 PM
]]
I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.
Please tell me who has come up with a balanced budget in the past thirty years? It seems just about all politicians are stupid.
randolph
02-02-2012, 08:33 PM
Some more food for thought.
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
Jaime L. Napier (http://pss.sagepub.com/search?author1=Jaime+L.+Napier&sortspec=date&submit=Submit) and
John T. Jost (http://pss.sagepub.com/search?author1=John+T.+Jost&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)+ (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/6/565.abstract#) Author Affiliations
New York University
Jaime L. Napier, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003?6634, e-mail: jnapier@nyu.edu.
Abstract
In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.
Personally, I think this is BS. All the conservatives I know are pissed off all the time. LOL
...Personally, I think this is BS. All the conservatives I know are pissed off all the time. LOL
And liberals are happy all the time. Oops sorry, they aren't. They're usually too pissed off and railing at the conservatives to have any happiness in their lives.
But on second thought liberals are happiest when they're pissed off and ranting about conservatives. It's the whole purpose of their being.
One of my students shared this with me this evening. I post it without comment.
TracyCoxx
02-02-2012, 11:39 PM
Some more food for thought.
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
That one's easy...
transjen
02-03-2012, 12:29 AM
That one's easy...
Sure is just look at the conseratives you have pictured
Take a good look and ask yourself what do they all have in common?
Answer they are all total whackjobs
And no one is happier then a total nut
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen
randolph
02-04-2012, 02:19 PM
That one's easy...
It would be interesting to compare the IQs of those two groups of females.;)
TracyCoxx
02-04-2012, 02:28 PM
It would be interesting to compare the IQs of those two groups of females.;)
I'd take Miss Crowley's body & brains any time :inlove:... I'd keep my cock though ;)
randolph
02-04-2012, 09:47 PM
I'd take Miss Crowley's body & brains any time :inlove:... I'd keep my cock though ;)
Oh! I thought you were into Ann Coulter. :lol:
randolph
02-04-2012, 09:58 PM
And liberals are happy all the time. Oops sorry, they aren't. They're usually too pissed off and railing at the conservatives to have any happiness in their lives.
But on second thought liberals are happiest when they're pissed off and ranting about conservatives. It's the whole purpose of their being.
The Republicans need to reincarnate Ronald Reagen and
The Democrats need to reincarnate Franklin Roosevelt then
everybody would be happy.
In the meantime :frown:
The Republicans need to reincarnate Ronald Reagen and
The Democrats need to reincarnate Franklin Roosevelt then
everybody would be happy...
:lol: Good one, Randolph.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.