GOP'ish candidates
 

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?

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.

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.

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 believe you mean Huntsman.

He'll probably not say batshit crap like Michelle Bachman.

Is it a good enough post if I just say this made me laugh?

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.

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.

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

OMG! He may be the actual "Manchurian candidate"!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851926.html

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Didn't Obama already have his Jimmy Carter moment? Maybe he did, but there's no "Reagan" in the GOP lineup.

You should pay a few percent more... into your 401k.

Jimmy was a lot better then W

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

LOL at what?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Palin and Bachman make me ashamed to be of the same gender
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

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.

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

Yes there is, Chris Christie but he's not running.:confused:

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.

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.

one simple question
 

How many jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts?
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

touche~
 

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.

875 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).

Except W comes off looking like a secular science wiz next to most of those guys (gals).

How many more jobs would have been lost if BO ended the Bush tax cuts?

Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.

Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist. :p

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.

Yeah, those were good times. Although he did have a pretty tough time taxing and spending with the republican controlled House & Senate.

Because they've been hijacked by the religious right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 typicality ... moving on to the next topic to avoid confronting having been called out for the previous topic.

This would be funnier were it not as smc said: you are using me to avoid responding to smc's challenge.

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.

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.

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.

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%!!!!

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.

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.

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.

Give the communist propaganda claptrap a break for awhile. Marxism is a discredited ideology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Translation: Tax all people an equal percentage. OMG what a radical thought.

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?

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.

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.

"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)

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.

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?

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

Outsourcing is a problem, but much less than 20 years ago unemployment has hovered between 4 & 6%.

BO blames it on ATMs lol. But again, we've had ATMs for a while now.

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.

[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.

[QUOTE=franalexes;188771]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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

uh, not sure who's proposing that one.

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/...n-from-canada/

I agree with you there....

Medical marijuana lol nudge nudge, wink wink.

Put it on the ballot now. With a 50% divorce rate it will be passed on the spot.

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.

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?